Experts warn Steven Bartlett could endanger cancer patients with harmful health advice

In recent discussions, Dr Aseem Malhotra, a British cardiologist with close ties to Robert F Kennedy Jr, spoke on Megyn Kelly's podcast about red meat and health risks. He challenged the prevailing narrative that red meat consumption is a significant factor in the rise of colon cancer among younger Americans. Instead, he asserted that there is no strong evidence linking moderate red meat intake to colon cancer, suggesting that studies often conflate it with processed meat, which he identified as more hazardous. His comments come at a time when the US government is advocating for reduced red meat consumption due to health concerns. Dr Malhotra's views were controversial, particularly as they contrast with health recommendations from organizations like the American Heart Association, which maintains that saturated fat intake should be monitored. He attributed the increasing incidence of colon cancer, especially among individuals under 50, to ultra-processed foods and poor dietary habits rather than red meat itself. His statements were met with considerable surprise from Kelly and have sparked discussion regarding the risks of misinformation. On the other hand, Steven Bartlett, host of the popular podcast Diary of a CEO, faced criticism for allowing guests to propagate harmful health misinformation. Experts pointed out that comments suggesting a ketogenic diet could treat cancer and dismissing proven medical treatments could endanger cancer patients. The BBC investigated Bartlett's show and found numerous instances of questionable health claims, raising concerns about the lack of challenge to guests' assertions. This has contributed to a growing distrust in conventional medical practices. As both discussions reveal contrasting viewpoints on diet and health, they highlight the need for transparency and accuracy in health communication. With public figures like Dr Malhotra and Steven Bartlett influencing large audiences, the accountability of such platforms is under scrutiny, prompting calls for more rigorous fact-checking to protect public health from misinformation and to promote evidence-based practices.