Main Edition
US
FR
December 15, 2024 - 1:00pm
Steven Bartlett, host of Diary of a CEO and patron saint of Britain’s basic business blokes, is probably feeling less-than-optimised right now. A BBC News investigation into his wildly popular podcast — the second-most popular in the UK and fifth-most popular in the world on Spotify this year — has thrown up certain issues about some of the health advice being hawked to his millions of listeners.
There’s the episode with Dr Thomas Seyfried, a researcher who reckons a ketogenic diet — fewer carbs, more fat — can stave off cancer, and said modern treatments equate to “medieval cures”. There’s another with Aseem Malhotra, a doctor who said the Covid vaccines were a “net negative to society”. Neither view was challenged by Bartlett, and nor were a myriad of other woo-woo health claims from guests, including the idea that disorders like autism can be “reversed” with a different diet.
Perhaps it’s too much to expect a keen medical mind in a man who once wrote a book called Happy Sexy Millionaire, and battle-rapped under the name Lyricist. Yet it seems Bartlett is actively attracted to dubious health fixes: as a judge on Dragon’s Den, he invested £50,000 in a company that claimed its gold-plated “ear seeds” could cure myalgic encephalomyelitis, a chronic fatigue condition, and tackle anxiety and insomnia. (He’s also had adverts for Huel, the meal-replacement drink, and Zoe, the nutrition company, banned because they looked like independent reviews, when in fact he’s an investor in both firms.)
As per his podcast’s name, Bartlett first got big by offering business advice. Given he was a millionaire by his mid-twenties, there was an obvious appeal. But Diary of a CEO’s evolution into a much broader media product — Boris Johnson probably wasn’t booked as a guest for his financial savvy — is unsurprising, particularly the focus on fringe health trends. As a genre, the self-optimisation podcast justifies its existence by what it can do for the listener. Go to Diary of a CEO’s YouTube channel (8.6 million subscribers), and each episode has a thumbnail image of Bartlett looking pensive; his guest looking authoritative; and a grabby quote or line: “this will turn your life around in 2025!”; “the one habit that’s making you feel lonely!”’; “do not buy a house!”; “stop using scented candles!”; “I cured their gum disease, and they walked again!”
The credulity with which Bartlett entertains all these ideas is very much like an even more popular podcaster Joe Rogan. Because with Rogan, as with Bartlett, and indeed much of the bro-coded podcast ecosystem, information is valuable in one dimension: the capacity to surprise. Truth doesn’t come into it. And if it does, it’s massaged away with woolly rhetoric around free speech and free thinking. Bartlett, in his episode with Aseem Malhotra, said he aimed to present “the other side” of the argument to the mainstream, and that “the truth is usually somewhere in the middle”. Well, no — with science, the truth is usually one thing or the other.
The two podcasters have come to this place from opposite directions. Rogan, a weed-smoking comedian, entertains weird ideas because it’s an entertaining thing to do. Bartlett spins them as things that will transform your life. It’s an attitude you see every day on LinkedIn, where engagement-seeking users post about their insane morning routines and how copywriting is best done while naked.
The bro podcaster’s reflexive contrarianism, where mainstream ideas are treated with scepticism and fringe ones aren’t, reflects how enmeshed they now are with startup culture. Almost by definition, starting a successful business means identifying a truth about the world that most people have ignored or actively denied. It’s all too easy for that attitude to then infect how you understand everything. This might be good for your streaming stats, but as Bartlett has found, sooner or later the truth catches up with you.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere are people who believe a low carbohydrate diet can ‘starve’ cancer cells, and there are people who argue that the cost of lockdowns, let alone the risks of Covid vaccines, have not been properly investigated (yet). There are scientific papers about these things which may, or may not, support these views.
Merely gainsaying people is not an adequate response, not an informed response. You either have free speech or you don’t.
If the author doesn’t like certain podcasts, don’t listen to them.
I won’t be taking advice from someone who says science and truth is black or white.
Somewhat bigoted and foolish article.
“…with science, the truth is usually one thing or the other.” – wow, the author knows nothing about the basics of science. Here are some definitions.
Science: “(knowledge from) the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities” – Cambridge Dictionary
The Science: “the facts and opinions that are provided by scientists who have studied a particular subject or situation” – Cambridge Dictionary
Science is a way of developing knowledge about the natural world. It doesn’t represent truth or absolute truth. One recent example is the scandal involving the president of Stanford University, a renowned Canadian-American neuroscientist. Marc Tessier-Lavigne resigned in 2023 for manipulating lab data in multiple research papers (note: peer review does not validate lab data). Those papers have been cited by hundreds of other research papers. Science goes through the process of correction and “recall” throughout its short history.
To say that Bartlett and Rogan are mere reflexive contrarians appealing to engagement-seeking users is an insult to their audience. I listen to both of them. Do I believe everything being said on their podcasts? Of course Not. I’m not stupid (I have more degrees than most people). I trust my own knowledge, experience, and intuition to make informed decisions that matter to me.
Albert Einstein wrote: “The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science.” – The Evolution of Physics (1938 book).
We should take Bartlett and Rogan and the questions raised in their podcasts more seriously. Only then we can start asking and formulating more and different questions to enhance and enrich science, and to raise new possibilities. Making science a religion by using soft-authoritarianism will only further harm the integrity of science and drive more people away from science.
Great comment. Science is a process; not an established set of facts. Every scientific “fact” should be open for debate. And you’re right, it’s profoundly insulting to assume that people who listen to Rogan and Bartlett are incapable of differentiating between good arguments and bad arguments.
Thanks Joanne, and i echo JV’s comment about science as a process, not an absolute.
Questioning the status quo is the essential ingredient for human advancement; seeking to curtail questioning the antithesis. This applies both in the sciences (multiple) and the arts.
Thank you, Jim and Lancashire. IMHO, the greatest setback to science happened during Covid when questions about the origin of the virus and the safety of the vaccines were shutdown and people were labelled as conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers. As far as science is concerned, articles like this one perhaps spread more misinformation than the views from popular podcasts.
Steven Bartlett, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, Lex Fridman, Sam Harris … I’ve followed them for years and I’ve heard a lot of woo woo junk. I’ve also learned some eureka gems … because they reliably provide one thing only – food for thought.
Saying that Covid vaccines were net negative to society is not a ‘woo woo’ claim. Is the author seriously suggesting that the Covid vaccine science is settled?
My family doctor believes that a carnivore diet is healthy. I like vegetables too much to follow his preferred diet but should I dismiss him as an all round quack on account of his sincerely held dietary beliefs?
Bullshit is Bullshit. The Bullshitter can be right about other things but this is bullshit.
AC, I was about to say the same thing. I subscribed to Unherd today, and the first article I read since then was this one, very disappointing. Gogarty has not done his homework on this.
Prof. Seyfried’s theory makes total sense. Cancer cells require about 10 times more glucose than a healthy cell, but starve to death on Ketones. This was discovered in the 1920s and won a Nobel prize for Otto Warburg. Gogarty withheld all the evidence and the many doctors who back Thomas up. So in sumation, if you avoid carbs and sugar, it creates a hostile environment for cancer.
Do I know of a case where a terminally ill cancer stage 4 patient was completely cured with a strict keto diet? I only know one person that has tried it; she was in terrible condition and did not even have any memory of one of the weeks she was in the hospital. I told her about it, she was totally open-minded about it, so she and her daughter studied Seyfried videos I sent her, and tried it, 100% as much as possible ate no carbs. 2 months later she was in total remission (the bone cancer is an uncurable type), which shocked her doctors.
2 months after that, the doctors told her she was totally cured, which they told her was impossible. That was 6 months ago, I see her weekly, and it is as if she never had cancer, totally healthy. Her name is Joann Diaz.
Reading this reckless smear job on Unherd is the opposite of what I wanted. After watching some Emily videos, I was impressed and saw her as even and fair in her reporting. I was unable to detect her politics until I researched her.
There could be a motive for this report; most TV news networks like CNN and Fox get over 50% of their ad revenue from drug companies, which means the reporters get most of their salary from Drug companies. Ever notice how news programs have way more drug ads than other programming? There is a reason for that: to create a conflict of interest. Roger Ailes admitted this to RFK Jr.; they were friends, although opposites.