He's an actor, not a scientific advisor.

He really believes this. The problem is that there is a bunch of people who readily believe his medical advice over what a certified doctor would give.

Most certified doctor's aren't really doing much different than Jim Carey- they have just chosen the CDC as their trusted source instead of the anecdotes that Jim Carrey uses. So I would say people are choosing anecdotes over their country's public health recommendations.

I think not trusting public health recommendations is a good thing given that they are often not based on sound science. But unfortunately people are turning to anecdotes instead of critically evaluating the evidence of both sides.

you seriously think that a man who has made millions as a professional liar (actor) is just as good as a army of public health officials who are dedicated to improving the lives of everyone?

I think not trusting public health recommendations is a good thing given that they are often not based on sound science.

Where is your critical evaluation of your own statement? Where is your proof for attacking a entire profession?

My point is that neither an actor, doctor, or government agency is a good source of information: you have to look at the sources they are using (and determine if they are accurately portraying the sources).

The only really good public health recommendation I can think of is to wash your hands. Read the book Good Calorie, Bad Calorie if you want to learn how dietary public health recommendations are not at all based on good science.

In the best case scenario our public health recommendations have generally distracted us from the truth. I would probably get heavily down-voted for discussing the worst case.

But wouldn't you then be trusting a book?

No, trusting scientific sources. If you see someone (including an author) correctly interpreting scientific studies (and not cherry-picking them) then you can think about trusting their arguments.

Still, you have to trust the book's author did not cherry-pick studies in order to make his case for selling the book. This may go against his economic interests.

That's a hard pill to swallow.

You don't need to put trust into any one book. Of course it would be foolish to look at just one book or just books from one point of view on a subject. If you look at the evidence from different sources site it will become apparent who is cherry-picking and mis-interpreting. Maybe everybody is, and you make up your own mind.