Camilla Thompson, a prominent wellness coach known for her media presence, has stirred controversy with alarming claims that chemical components in sunscreens may lead to cancer. Her recent book, “Biohackme,” advocates for unconventional health practices, including the consumption of industrial dyes and volcanic rock, as part of a quest for longevity. However, these recommendations have raised eyebrows among medical professionals regarding their safety and validity.
Sydney doctor Brad McKay, author of “Fake Medicine,” expressed serious concerns, labelling Thompson’s assertions as potentially hazardous. He noted that while she presents an appealing persona, her messaging lacks scientific support and can mislead the public. The health sector is divided on her advice. McKay cautioned that unverified information may confuse readers, mixing beneficial practices with questionable ones, leading to health risks.
Among the controversial suggestions in Thompson’s book are the use of colloidal silver sprays, ingestion of zeolites, and drinking methylene blue—none of which have approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for therapeutic use. Despite including a disclaimer about her personal experiences and recommending consultation with healthcare professionals, McKay highlighted the dangers of promoting a substance like methylene blue, which can have adverse effects, especially when misused.
Thompson has previously been critical of conventional sunscreens, claiming they contain harmful chemicals that can be carcinogenic. However, she later clarified that her statements were misinterpreted, asserting she had not claimed all sunscreens cause cancer. During her book launch event in Bondi Beach, when confronted with concerns over her claims, Thompson defended her work, insisting it is based on scientific research.
Medical experts, like McKay, remain alarmed at the potential repercussions of her misleading guidance, which may jeopardise public health. As her influence grows, the balance between wellness advice and scientifically backed information remains crucial, warranting scrutiny and discernment from the public.