The Wall Street Journal publishes an editorial by Suzanne Somers, actress, labeling her a “health and wellness” expert. Wow, that REALLY IS bottom of the barrel. She spouts a lot of nonsense. Expert? They have an odd interpretation of that word. [Thanks to Jeb Card for the tip]
As a writer of 24 books mostly on health and wellness and by using my celebrity to get to the best and brightest doctors, scientists and medical professionals in the alternative and integrative health-care world, I have come to the following conclusions:
First of all, let’s call affordable health care what it really is: It’s socialized medicine.
She goes on to give us personal horror stories about her interactions with Canadian health care through her family. Then she asks “Really, is this what we want?”
Then she offers “expertise” about how this benefits citizens or not.
Affordable care will allow for pre-existing conditions. That’s the good part for retirees. But, let’s get down and dirty; the word “affordable” is a misnomer. So far, all you are hearing on the news is how everyone’s premiums are doubling and tripling and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that the whole thing is a big mess. Plus, even after Obamacare is fully implemented, there still will be tens of millions of people not covered. So what’s the point? Medical care will be degraded, the costs will skyrocket, and most frightening of all, your most intimate and personal information is now up for grabs.
Retirees who are on Medicare will suffer the consequences of 700 billions of Medicare dollars instead being used to cover the skyrocketing cost of Obamacare. In essence, less dollars for seniors, means less service. Not fair. The Boomers are going to take the “hit.” In Obamacare, “too old” has limitations of service.
Boomers are smart. They see the train wreck coming… most I speak with think the Affordable Care Act is a greater Ponzi scheme than that pulled off by Bernie Madoff.
Boomers, if they are smart, would not take advice from an actress who has no experience or professional training in healthcare, public health police, insurance, or economics. What in the WORLD prompted WSJ to allow this platform? It’s absurd! They had to make several corrections to the piece due to her errors. The piece also misrepresents the program and give no useful information. The editorial needs an editor, me thinks. But people have noticed that this is rather silly. Yet, the comments are polarized and mixed. People are saying she has a point due to her experiences (actually mean nothing), and others are appalled by her ignorance and the paper’s choice to allow this to be posted.
This Salon piece asks: “Are there any actresses over 40 who believe in medical science?” They have noticed a trend. It’s a hazardous one.
There’s Jenny McCarthy, the current “View” cohost, whose activism against vaccines (she believes they cause autism) has given rise to a website tracking just how many have died due to vaccine-preventable illnesses. Mariel Hemingway, of “Manhattan,” has, per a recent New York Times Magazine, devoted her life to health-food-store pursuits of filling her body with organic food and balancing her alkalinity, and has left acting behind in order to serve as a lifestyle guru for others (many of her tips, to be fair, seem completely manageable). Mary Steenburgen, promoting her movie “Last Vegas,” told a journalist a recent surgery left her with the ability to play the accordion.
And, most infamously, there’s Suzanne Somers, the author of some 24 books largely on the topic of wellness; her concept of wellness involves filling the body with hormones in order to fool the body into thinking it is not experiencing menopause. As shown on “Oprah,” Somers takes 60 pills a day, as well as injecting hormones into her vagina and rubbing them into her skin. The one-time “Three’s Company” actress has questioned the efficacy of chemotherapy as she promotes medical treatments not subject to the strict scientific method evaluation as, say, traditional medicine.
Salon makes a sly suggestion that her lack of acting parts has caused her to capitalize on this new niche. But they also note that she has a key female demographic in which to promote quackery and that is DANGEROUS.
But Somers’ and McCarthy’s statements have real human cost: as Salon wrote in 2009, Somers takes her information from sources “many of whom are neither experts in women’s health or endocrinology, nor board-certified physicians, nor experienced researchers.” McCarthy’s anti-vaccine rhetoric, which has helped to erode the sort of herd immunity that prevents disease outbreak, is based on a discredited medical study retracted by medical journal the Lancet; the talk show host has alleged a coordinated media campaign by vaccine manufactures. Somers’ Wiley Protocol was designed by a self-styled “molecular biologist” who only holds a B.A. in anthropology and has been criticized by medical doctors for lack of proof of efficacy.
Sadly, they get attention. They capitalize on distrust of government, fear, and conspiracy. For some bizarre reason, they are popular.
The celebrity’s belief he or she is right about everything by dint of being charming on a 1970s sitcom or a 1990s dating show is the very essence of the American myth of self-creation; they’re on TV, so they must have something substantial to teach us!
I don’t get my health information from a complete non-expert promoting nonsense. We strongly recommend you don’t either. And, HELLO, WSJ, what are you thinking? You’re killing your reputation with this crap.