Why is the WHO Legitimizing Pseudoscience?

Scientists and medical experts fear the agency is endangering its credibility. Plus: the latest wellness news and trends

Updates: 

I really appreciated all the insightful feedback on the Taylor Swift wellness connection. Mockingbird magazine, for example, shared an additional theory that pointed to a kind of salvation: 

“... If the awkward, farmgirl teenager could one day rule the world, then perhaps the suffering of today might be the beginnings of one’s own superhero origin story. Pairing vulnerability with success in this way can provide more than catharsis. It gives hope.”

Book alert 🚨🚨🚨: The Gospel of Wellness is coming out in paperback Sept. 12th! If you haven’t already snagged a copy, now’s your chance! ORDER

Join me at the HLTH conference: I’ll be leading a panel and talk at #HLTH2023 in Vegas, Oct. 8-11! Come learn about the future of health, wellness, and tech—and please, someone teach me craps.

Why is the WHO Legitimizing Pseudoscience? 

Here are some medical diagnoses that can be found in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases, a globally used diagnostic tool to categorize diseases and health conditions:

• “Liver qi stagnation” (liver damage from emotional disharmony) 

• “Fire harassing heart spirit pattern” (an energy imbalance resulting in insomnia and palpitations)

• “Gallbladder depression”

• “Diarrhea disorder” (Frequent bowel movements “explained by wind, cold, dampness, fire or heat factors…”)

Spoiler: You won’t find any of these diagnoses in an accredited medical text book, nor vouched for by any reputable medical institution. And yet, these conditions are publicized by one of the world’s leading authorities on health.

Last week, WHO’s promotion of non-science based health interventions like Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and homeopathy ignited a Twitter controversy. Then, several days later, the agency held its first Traditional Medicine Global Summit, co-hosted by the government of India, with some questionable groups.

WHO tried to backpedal its seeming endorsement, stating it wants to research such questionable practices, as if they had never been touched by the scientific community. But as I mention in my book, homeopathy hasn’t been proven to significantly affect specific diseases or symptoms even after nearly two thousand papers.  The National Institutes of Health (NIH) concludes, “There’s little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific health condition.” (Related: The homeopathy delusion)

The WHO’s tweets and even the conference are interpreted as legitimizing overall philosophies that go against medical consensus. So last week, I dug into the topic, asking experts: How will this affect the organization moving forward?