(© egokhan - stock.adobe.com)
How Wellness Brands And Influencers Are Exploiting Our Fears Of Aging And Death
In A Nutshell
- Billionaires, influencers, and wellness brands are fueling a booming longevity industry, promising everything from biological age reversal to disease prevention.
- Many of these products and services, from peptide powders to full-body MRIs, lack solid scientific evidence that they improve health or extend lifespan.
- Overdiagnosis and incidental findings are common risks, creating unnecessary costs, anxiety, and strain on health systems.
- Unlike proven preventive care (immunizations, age-appropriate screenings, healthy habits), the industry’s “anti-aging” solutions are expensive, resource-intensive, and often ineffective.
- By medicalizing normal aging, the longevity movement risks embedding ageism and distracting from accessible, evidence-based ways to live well.
If you could, would you pay to live forever? Some Silicon Valley billionaires aren’t just making tech products – they’ve set their sights on immortality.
Social media is flooded with influencers promoting peptides, “functional” mushroom powders and other (often non-evidence-based) hacks said to maximize your lifespan. Some even claim to reverse your “biological age”.
The quest to live longer, look younger or just live one’s “best life” has become a booming industry, encompassing treatments as diverse as ice baths, saunas, cryotherapy chambers and even red light therapy.
But behind much of the marketing and social media posts are commercial interests willing to cater to a population fearful of aging and dying.
Nobody Lives Forever
The key reason humans aren’t immortal hinges on evolution. This process favors genetic traits promoting successful reproduction and adaptation over those promoting unlimited lifespan for individuals.
The ancient Greeks told cautionary tales about life extension. Those who reached for immortality mostly found this came at a terrible cost. The mythical Tithonus, for example, was doomed to endless aging and decline after being granted eternal life without eternal youth.
Fast forward to today, the longevity industry has the backing of venture capital funds, celebrity investors and pharmaceutical companies.
But much of this money is being funneled into products and services with little or no evidence for how they actually improve health or lengthen lifespan.
In his well-publicized quest for life extension, U.S. venture capitalist Bryan Johnson reportedly spends millions and undergoes constant medical testing with the impossible aim of never dying.
Johnson’s longevity regimen includes a hyper-controlled diet, hundreds of daily supplements and strict sleep and exercise routines. He has even received transfusions of his own son’s blood plasma.
We see three major problems with the longevity industry that are a cause for concern.
Profit Before Evidence
Innovation is central to the longevity industry, attracting an influx of Silicon Valley investors seeking to “hack” the aging process. Yet, these innovations are infrequently backed by high-quality evidence.
For example, full-body MRI is marketed as a way to identify cancer and other abnormalities early before they are harder to treat. Yet, there is no evidence these scans improve health outcomes. Medical colleges around the world do not recommend full-body MRI in healthy individuals.
Tests like these can lead to “incidentalomas” – unexpected findings that may prompt unnecessary follow-up procedures, costs and anxiety.
The longevity industry pitches itself as a disruptive alternative to mainstream health care. But it still depends on that system to function. Scans, blood tests and experimental treatments inevitably flow back into hospitals and clinics for follow-up, specialist consultations and interventions.
This puts added strain on already stretched services – both financially and in terms of workforce – while arguably delivering little benefit to population health.
Test And You Shall Find
Despite widespread public enthusiasm for screening tests, experts have long warned more testing does not always lead to better health.
One of the clearest risks is overdiagnosis – when an abnormality or disease is diagnosed that will never impact a person’s health during their lifetime. The more you test, the more you’ll find – much of it clinically irrelevant. This creates a self-affirming cycle.
Unnecessary investigations can result in overdiagnosis, incidental findings and potentially cascades of further unnecessary procedures or tests.
Longevity Isn’t The Same As Prevention
Marketers of longevity claim their services and products are part of “preventive” medicine: spotting disease before it strikes and keeping people healthier for longer.
But the longevity movement differs drastically from the public health principle of prevention.
Prevention, in mainstream medicine, is about simple, evidence-based measures. This includes immunizations and screening for cancer at the right ages.
But there’s no clear evidence many of the exhaustive tests and treatments the longevity industry promotes improve long-term outcomes for otherwise healthy people.
They simply cost a lot of money, are resource intensive and may lead to further unnecessary testing.
Why This Matters
By medicalizing aging, the longevity movement is a classic example of disease mongering. It also risks embedding ageism into everyday commerce – pathologizing normal aging rather than accepting it as part of life.
It also risks diverting attention and resources away from important and basic public health system functions that can improve quality of life for millions as we all gracefully age.
The hype around many unfounded longevity claims distracts us from what we already know works: regular exercise, healthy food, sound sleep, meaningful relationships and fair access to evidence-based medical treatment.
Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney. He receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.
Brooke Nickel, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney. She receives fellowship funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). She is on the Executive Committee for Wiser Healthcare and the Scientific Committee of the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference.
Sean Docking, Research Fellow, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University. He does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
