The ludicrous health claims celebrities WISH they could RETRACT
Instagram images appearing to show the organ being de-hydrated and turned into pills—which have since been hit with an age restriction by the social media site—sparked debate online.
Some people claim that eating the placenta after a baby is born has a range of health benefits for new mothers—replenishing iron levels after giving birth and lessening symptoms of post-natal depression.
But health bodies including the US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) have long warned there is little evidence at all to support the claims and could even lead to dangerous infections.
Since the Scottish DJ's post, several doctors have criticised the move, arguing 'no healthcare professional with any integrity would endorse these pills'.
It has also sparked renewed debate around health information—or misinformation—shared online to millions of people.
Experts have long warned that growing levels of celeb health endorsements can pose a risk to wellbeing—surveys also suggest that just two per cent of health advice published on social media aligns with public health guidelines.
Here, the Daily Mail reflects on five celeb endorsed health claims that have since been debunked by medical professionals.
Gwyneth Paltrow's 'garbage' Goop egg
In 2017, Gwyneth Paltrow's lifestyle brand Goop infamously released $66 jade 'Yoni eggs.'
Goop claimed its jade and rose quartz eggs, which are inserted into the vagina, could balance hormones, regulate menstrual cycles and strengthen pelvic muscles.
A since-deleted Goop article also claimed the eggs were 'ideal for detox' and create 'kidney strength.'
But soon after the product launched world-leading gynecologist Dr Jen Gunter warned the jade egg could lead to toxic shock syndrome, pelvic pain or painful sex.
In an open letter, the author of bestselling books, The Vagina Bible and The Menopause Manifesto, added: 'I read the post on GOOP and all I can tell you is it is the biggest load of garbage I have read on your site since vaginal steaming.
'It's even worse than claiming bras cause cancer. But hey, you aren't one to let facts get in the way of profiting from snake oil.'
In 2018, Goop faced legal action, brought by California's consumer protection office, over its unscientific claims about the vaginal eggs and agreed to pay $145,000 (£108,000).
Kim Kardashian's 'damaging' weight loss advice
In 2018, Kim Kardashian faced fierce backlash over a controversial Instagram post promoting a lollipop which acts as an appetite-suppressant.
Kardashian shared an image of herself sucking on the diet snack alongside the caption: 'Plugging the product she captioned the shot: '#ad You guys… @flattummyco just dropped a new product. They're Appetite Suppressant Lollipops and they're literally unreal.
Months later, she promoted meal replacement shakes by the same company, claiming she was 'already feeling so good'.
At the time, experts argued there was no evidence that this type of diet works well to improve health or even weight loss long term and is only likely to be recommended for severely obese individuals who are at risk of developing diabetes.
Even then, this would be done in a controlled environment with medical experts, they added.
Months later, following a slew of similar posts by other celebrities, England's top doctor even urged social media companies to ban 'damaging' celebrity-endorsed social media ads promoting weight loss aids.
Professor Sir Stephen Powis, the now former NHS medical director, said: 'If a product sounds like it is too good to be true, then it probably is.
'The risks of quick-fix weight loss outweigh the benefits, and advertising these products without a health warning is damaging.
'Highly influential celebrities are letting down the very people who look up to them, by peddling products which are at best ineffective and at worst harmful.
'Social media companies have a duty to stamp out the practice of individuals and companies using their platform to target young people with products known to risk ill health.'
'Snake oil' ear seeds backed by Steven Bartlett
Health experts were also stunned last year after Giselle Boxer, from Sheffield, received offers from all six judges on the BBC show Dragons' Den, for a stake in her business Acu Seeds.
The mother-of-one ultimately accepted £50,000 from Dragon Steven Bartlett for 12.5 per cent of the business, which sells packets of gold – or silver-plated 'ear seeds' for £30.
The seeds, acupuncture beads placed in the ear which falsely claim to cure chronic fatigue condition myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).
ME—myalgic encephalomyelitis—is a disabling, complex illness that affects 250,000 people in the UK.
Also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS, symptoms include pain, brain fog, fatigue and an inability to recover after expending even small amounts of energy.
The episode prompted a furious backlash from doctors and ME patients, who accused her of selling 'snake oil' preying on the 'most vulnerable and horribly ill people in society' with no scientific backing to help ME.
Such was the furore that it sparked complaints to both the BBC and the Advertising Standards Authority.
At the time, Professor David Strain, senior clinical lecturer at the University of Exeter told the Daily Mail: 'There is evidence to suggest acupuncture helps with some types of pain. And some patients I've worked with have said acupuncture has helped with their fatigue.
'There's next to zero evidence ear seeds actually have the same effect as acupuncture.'
Tom Cruise's antidepressant rant
In a 2005 interview, Tom Cruise criticised actress Brooke Shields' memoir 'Down Came the Rain,' in which she admitted she was prescribed antidepressants to help treat her postnatal depression.
He said: 'Here is a woman, and I care about Brooke Shields because I think she is an incredibly talented woman. You look at, where has her career gone?... These drugs are dangerous.
'The thing that I'm saying about Brooke is that there's misinformation.
'She doesn't understand the history of psychiatry... she doesn't know what these drugs are, and for her to promote it is irresponsible.'
He added the drugs 'don't cure anything' and said: ''You can use vitamins to help a woman through those things'.
Cruise was widely slammed at the time, with Shields taking a swipe at his Scientology beliefs: 'Has he had a baby? Tom should stick to saving the world from aliens and let women decide which treatment is best for them.'
In 2006, Shields revealed Cruise had come to her house to personally apologise.
Under NHS guidance, antidepressants may be recommended for postnatal depression, particularly for moderate to severe cases or when other treatments, such as talking therapy, has not helped.
Doctors will prescribe medication that is safe to take while breastfeeding.
Kourtney Kardashian's vaginal wellness gummies
She might be one of the world's most famous reality TV stars, but Kourtney Kardashian has since moved into the world of wellness.
In 2022, she launched a line of supplements called Lemme, but a year later a new addition to her range—vaginal wellness gummies—sparked fierce backlash from experts.
The probiotic claimed to 'specifically target vaginal health and pH levels to support freshness and odour'.
But gynecologists said there was 'no merit' to the claim that the tablets can 'target' vaginal wellness.
Dr Jen Gunter said: 'Anyone who suggests that your vagina isn't fresh or needs an improved taste is a misogynist and awful person.'
LloydsPharmacy also said it was 'normal for vaginas and vaginal fluids to have a slight smell, which will vary according to hormones, activity, hygiene and diet'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Popular breakfast option linked to higher risk of cancer... and it's not bacon or sausages
Bacon and sausages are often vilified as dangerous breakfast foods, with ties to devastating diseases like cancer. However, another popular choice, cereal, may be no better. Sugary cereals are a breakfast staple in millions of homes, but these products can be full of additives such as dyes, sweeteners, thickeners and preservatives designed to extend shelf life and improve taste, making them ultra-processed foods (UPFs). UPFs have been linked to rising rates of obesity and diabetes, and more recent research has found links to cancer and dementia. The sugary cereals that fall under the wide UPF umbrella are often advertised as being part of a balanced breakfast, and their fun shapes and bright colors make them popular among children. According to new CDC findings, 55 percent of daily calories consumed by both kids and adults in the US come from UPFs, and children and teens got about two-thirds of their calories from these foods from 2021 to 2023. The links between UPF-heavy diets and cancers have become more solid in recent years amid new interest in the roles they play in the rising rates of chronic illnesses in America, as well as the Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again initiative. In a recent study, UK researchers found that all UPFs, not just processed meats, are linked to cancer. For every 10 percent increase in UPF consumption, the risk of cancer rises by 12 percent. The strongest link researchers found was between all UPFs, including sugary cereals, and breast cancer. The study's online design helped them track over 100,000 French adults for years. They were participants of the NutriNet-Santé study launched in 2009. People ranged in age from 18 to 72, with an average age of about 43. They logged surveys about their diet, lifestyle, and general health every six months for up to eight years. The study, published in the BMJ, asked participants to record everything they ate and drank on three random days over 24 hours. The random days chosen were spread out over two weeks so that researchers could get a clearer picture of their regular eating habits. They repeated this process every six months for the duration of their time in the study, which ranged from a few years to up to eight years. They considered UPFs to include mass-produced items like packaged bread, breakfast cereals, snacks, candy, sodas, chicken nuggets, instant noodles, frozen meals, and ready-to-eat foods. They found that sugary cereals and starchy foods made up 16 percent of the UPFs found in people's diets. Other top sources included sugary products (26 percent), such as candies and desserts, followed by sugary drinks (20 percent), including sodas. Processed fruits and vegetables, such as canned peaches or peas with seasonings in a microwavable pouch, made up 15 percent of the UPFs people ate. These products often contain additives, like artificial flavors, colors, and sweeteners, and are made using industrial methods such as hydrogenation, extrusion, or deep-frying. They're designed to mimic real food but typically include ingredients not used in home cooking, such as modified starches, protein isolates, and preservatives. Throughout the study, more than 2,200 people reported a new cancer diagnosis. Researchers followed up by looking at medical records, hospital reports, speaking to their doctors, and convening an expert committee to review and verify the reports. Of the cancers reported, 739 cases were breast cancers, including 264 premenopausal and 475 postmenopausal; 281 were prostate cancers, and 153 were colorectal cancers. In addition to raising the overall risk of cancer by 12 percent, for every 10 percent increase in UPF consumption, the risk of breast cancer grew by 11 percent. 'No association was statistically significant for prostate and colorectal cancers,' the researchers said, but added that they also found a 'borderline non-significant trend' of higher colorectal cancer risk the more a person's diet was made up of UPFs. Sugary cereals and other UPFs typically contain a laundry list of ingredients that have public health experts and officials concerned. Emulsifiers, the additives that give milkshakes, sauces, and processed meats their smooth texture, are a major culprit. These have been tied to an increased risk of colon cancer, as they may damage the protective barriers in the intestines, leading to inflammation. The CDC found that kids and teens have diets primarily made up of UPFs Kids aged 6 to 11 are consuming the most ultra-processed foods, with 65 percent of their daily calories coming from these products. That number drops slightly to 63 percent for adolescents aged 12 to 18, and to 56 percent for kids under six. As for adults, those between 19 and 39 are the biggest consumers, getting 54 percent of their calories from ultra-processed foods. The number drops slightly to 53 percent for adults aged 40 to 59, and a bit further to 52 percent for those over 60. Recent studies suggest ultra-processed foods could be linked to over 120,000 early deaths in the US, a number higher than that of top killers like fentanyl.
Times
27 minutes ago
- Times
Firstborn daughters ‘cost mothers more in lost pay and housework'
Having a first child often entails sacrifices, but a study suggests that British mothers pay a far higher price when the baby is a girl. It is well established that women's earnings tend to fall after childbirth. The new research shows that this so-called 'child penalty' is, on average, steeper when the firstborn is a daughter.'Mothers' monthly earnings over the five years after birth were, on average, £450 lower if they had a daughter compared to a son,' said Sonia Bhalotra, a professor of economics at the University of Warwick, who worked on the study with Angelina Nazarova of the University of Essex and Damian Clarke of the University of Exeter. 'To put these figures in perspective, they exceed the child benefit for first children, which is approximately £110 per month.' The arrival of a girl, rather than a boy, was also associated with mothers doing more housework, and with fathers saying that they were more satisfied with their relationships with their partners. The research draws on more than a decade of data from the UK Longitudinal Household Survey, which tracks about 100,000 individuals from about 40,000 households. It suggests that the sex of a first child shapes not only women's careers, but also family life, household chores, societal views and mental health. Mothers of girls saw their incomes fall by an average of 26 per cent in the five years after birth, compared with fathers — more than eight times the 3 per cent fall for mothers of boys. Employment rates showed a similar pattern: they fell by about 20 per cent for mothers of daughters, compared with 6 per cent for mothers of sons. • Flexible hours 'trap' mothers into doing more parenting After a first son, the share of household chores mothers carried out alone increased by 27 per cent; after a first daughter, it jumped by 43 per cent. Similarly, mothers were 57 per cent more likely to identify as the main carer after a son, but 67 per cent more likely after a daughter. The researchers also found that mothers, compared with fathers, became more likely to report 'traditional' views such as the belief that 'the husband should earn and the wife should stay at home'. Fathers' views did not change. Mothers of girls suffered a bigger drop in mental health than mothers of boys. Meanwhile, fathers of daughters reported greater satisfaction with their relationships with their partners than fathers of sons, a finding that may be linked to women shouldering more domestic work. The study could not show what caused these results. It is possible that some mothers choose to take more time off to nurture daughters, or that fathers share more of the household burden when they have a son. However, these remain speculative explanations. To the extent that children benefit from the mother spending more time at home, the behavioural shifts the authors observe may give firstborn daughters an advantage. Bhalotra stressed that the term 'child penalty' has been used in academia to refer to a persistent drop in earnings of the mother relative to the father after birth, and that it does not imply any moral judgment. 'These intriguing findings imply that girls grow up in a systematically different household environment than boys, which could influence their perceptions of the role of women and men,' she and her colleagues wrote in a working paper.
The Sun
27 minutes ago
- The Sun
Why you should be putting bay leaves in your washing machine
YOUR laundry routine could be transformed with the help of a £1 seasoning. Bay leaves are most commonly used to flavour hearty dishes such as soups or stews, but they also have another hidden use. 3 3 For thousands of years, the leaves have also been used for their antibacterial and antifungal properties. If you toss a handful of the budget leaves in to your washing load, they are said to banish harsh odours such as sweat and cigarette smoke. How does it work? As the laundry spins in the machine, the leaves release compounds that eliminate bacteria, instead of simply masking the smell. Plus, they can also help to keep your washing machine clean. Over time, washing machines can end up smelly and mouldy, due to a build up of detergent. However, if you add bay leaves to your machine, they prevent odour causing micro-organisms from growing. To try out this hack, place a handful of dry bay leaves into a fabric bag, and stick it in alongside your washing load. Make sure to use detergent as well, as the leaves are not a replacement, but an addition to your laundry routine. A stain-remover too YouTube account Clever Hacks, also revealed that you can use bay leaves to remove tough stains. "A simple trick with bay leaves will save your clothes", they said. How to hang out your washing on the line and do no ironing, folding or sorting when it's dry "Simply throw a few bay leaves into the washing machine with your stained clothes, choose any setting and the stain problem should disappear." The Youtuber added, that if the stains are particularly bad you can place your clothes in a pot of boiling water with a handful of bay leaves, and leave them to boil for three hours. "The squeeze out the clothes and throw them in the washing machine with detergent", they added. "Take the clothes out and enjoy their cleanliness." Laundry tips Catherine Green, sustainable cleaning expert at smol shared her laundry tips. How often should you be remaking your bed? When it comes to your bed, maintaining a hygienic sleep setup can actually improve your sleep quality, helping you start every day better. Most people shed 500 million skin cells per day and a lot of that ends up in bed for dust mites to feed on. And those with asthma or allergies might see symptoms worsen by sleeping on dirty sheets! You want to be washing your sheets once a week - or every 10 days if you don't suffer from allergies and wear nightclothes. Bedding builds up with sweat, skin cells and oils quickly, even if it doesn't look dirty. Using an effective detergent like smol's will still give you a great clean on a 20°C cycle - that's better for the planet and your energy bills! What temperature do smol recommend then? For your regular weekly washes I recommend washing most loads at 20°C for 30 minutes. It's gentler on fabrics, slashes energy use, and still delivers excellent stain removal with the right detergent. A colder wash can actually be more effective if you opt for a bio detergent as its enzymes need cooler water; too hot and they lose their ability to digest stains. A wash at 60°c (unless you have silk sheets) every now and again can help kill off dust mites and other nasties. What's the difference between bio and non-bio detergent? Bio detergents contain enzymes, which are especially good at breaking down tough stains like food, grass, or sweat. It's best used in mid to low temperature washes (ideally between 20-40°C) as anything hotter can cause them not to work effectively. Non-bio skips the enzymes, which in turn makes it more suitable for those with sensitive skin or allergies. Although non-bio doesn't contain enzymes, it's still great at removing stains and keeping your clothes clean, you just may need to use a slightly higher temperature setting to aid with the cleaning process. However, not everyone is convinced of the effectiveness of bay leaves. 'I am not aware of any studies on the effectiveness of bay leaves in washing machines against bad odours,' Dr. Bernd Glassl from the German Cosmetic, Toiletry, Perfumery and Detergent Association told MyHomebook. The expert confirmed that bay leaves do have anti-microbial properties, but added: "Assuming that's true, I wonder how many leaves would be needed for the concentration of the active ingredient to be sufficient to have an antimicrobial effect in a washing machine when diluted with water.' Sceptical of the hacks effectiveness, the Dr instead recommend alternative hacks to keep your laundry smelling good, such as removing laundry promptly after a load is finished, and leaving the machine open after use, so that it can dry out. The expert also recommend cleaning the detergent drawer regularly and doing a hot wash with bleach once a month. 3
