Scholars from a wide range of disciplines, including communication and rhetoric, have argued that infectious disease has been increasingly securitized in the post-9/11 environment. This essay tracks the rhetoric of seven U.S. pandemic plans from 1978 to 2017 to investigate how the evolving language of these plans supports or undermines the infectious disease securitization thesis. Our analysis reveals stark differences in the arrangement, delivery, and style of U.S. pandemic plans, despite a consistent focus on antigenic shifts of influenza A, vaccines, and medical research and development. Although U.S. pandemic plans reflect connections to security since their earliest inception, they have adopted more explicit linkages to national and global health security since 2005. This move reflects the emergence of the global health security paradigm and raises questions about pandemic planning implementation.

Celebrity-driven wellness ventures are pervasive and often spearheaded by white women, resulting in white-centric health guidance. One such venture is KINRGY, a workout and lifestyle method created by professional dancer Julianne Hough that regularly appropriates and exploits Eastern, Aboriginal, and BIPOC cultural practices. Through a critical rhetorical interrogation of the workout videos and Instagram feed of KINRGY, we assess how this method relies on cultural appropriation and New Age Orientalism to situate spirituality as the crux of universal health, thus establishing a reconfiguration of healthism into what we call “neohealthism”—a phenomenon that further obfuscates structural constraints on health, and expands the individual imperatives of healthful choices by placing metaphysical considerations on consumers’ shoulders. We theorize neohealthism through the following themes: the consumption of the Other via cultural exploitation, the question of expertise in spiritual leadership, and the intensified neoliberal imperatives that individualize health and wellness for self and the universe.

Rhetoric of health and medicine (RHM) knowledge integrity is explored in the context of preparing RHM students, researchers, and practitioners to be careful curators and communicators of information from the medical literature. More specifically, the goal of this article is to provide a systematic framework for researching and citing claims, or “facts,” from the medical literature with transferrable skills beyond the academy. In this article, this framework is examined through the lens of science communication ethics and writer ethos to guide individuals while navigating between automation of literature databases and human agency. Furthermore, this article explores the proper citation of research claims from different genres that are published in the “medical literature” with attention to conserving the authors’ original voice. Collectively, this framework and discussion builds on prior scholarship on authorship and intellectual property in medicine.

Action-oriented research strives to include vulnerable populations’ voices and to ensure reciprocity between academic and non-academic stakeholders to address complex problems. Challenges persist, however, in engaging community members beyond experts and reconciling differences in the timetables of such work. This article proposes an embodied approach to action-oriented research with vulnerable populations that calls attention to the situated, embodied aspects of the smaller moments through which complex problems are lived. By analyzing a case study of a project at a senior center for disadvantaged older adults—with a particular focus on time, place, and bodies—the piece articulates the implications of such an approach for theory, methodology, and practice in both localized contexts and RHM more broadly.

This article applies the lens of genre to the social media advocacy of three patient-activists—self-identified “zebras” whose rarely diagnosed conditions are frequently comorbid—who, through performing consistent genre moves, and using the capabilities of social networking to translate personal experiences into public discourse, amplify visibility, and normalize their voices as collective advocacy. Ultimately, through networked communication, these patient-activists perform emergent connections between their conditions outside of the traditional legitimization networks of biomedicine with the aim of gaining legitimacy in public and clinical settings.

This dialogue piece provides scholars of the rhetoric of health and medicine with a close examination of vegan and vegetarian diets/lifestyles through the perspective of several scholars, activists, and/or medical practitioners. Through these conversations, the authors illuminate many key areas of interest and future examination related to vegan and vegetarian diets through the lens of several subtopics including health impact, ethics, cultural influence on diet, gender, medical advice, emerging “meat” technologies, and societal rhetoric about vegans and vegetarians.The dialogue participants provide a discussion on how vegetarian diets—and vegan diets in particular—can progress individual and public human health, liberate non-human animals, improve the environment, and provide a vehicle in which several important social justice movements (for both humans and animals) can take root, all the while recognizing the many reasons reasons people might choose a vegetarian or vegan diet.

The public’s declining trust in health advice from traditional outlets has long been noted by scholars. But what makes alternative sources for health information appear more trustworthy to some audiences? In this analysis, the author traces the use of expertise and experience as forms of multivocality in the textual artifacts of Gwyneth Paltrow and her enterprise, Goop—specifically those that promote clean eating and detox diets. The analysis illustrates how Goop creates a superficially neutral platform for different voices that make the texts seem polyphonic and by extension more trustworthy given that readers can choose which health plan is right for them. But upon further analysis the author illustrates that Goop blends each voice so that they “move in step” as a choir, combining with Paltrow’s own voice, and ultimately creating an illusion of polyphony and masking a dominant homophonic message that ties together mandates to “ask questions,” empower ourselves, and embrace the assumption that young, slender bodies are signifiers of health and wellness.

The intersection of industry sponsorship, government regulation, academic interests, and medical journals is a core interest in biomedical research, and one that overlaps with concerns in the rhetoric of health and medicine (RHM). At stake in conversations about this intersection are authority and participation: who is and is not invited to offer opinions and, even when invited, whose opinions are taken seriously. Following, colleagues with ties to the International Society of Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) present their ideas in response to questions about authorship and authority posed by another, who is also an RHM scholar. The answers of medical journal editors and publications professionals employed by corporate entities largely align with the view that both authorship and authority should be determined by scientific practice and knowledge rather than power relations or politics. A philosopher who gave an invited plenary talk at the national ISMPP meeting and participated in the organization’s first white paper offers a different perspective, considering the ways that fields self-constitute in part by bounding authority and authorship.

The following commentary follows on and flows out of an initial response to reading “Multiple Voices on Authorship and Authority in Biomedical Publications” by DeTora and colleagues (2020), which appeared in volume 3 issue 4 of Rhetoric of Health and Medicine. This response, by rhetorician of science, health, and medicine Celeste Condit, begins by situating questions about authorship and authority in biomedicine against a classical rhetorical source, Plato’s Gorgias. In so doing, Condit identifies a messy truth—that rhetoric potentially can pose dangers when applied to health and medicine. The authors then construct a Platonic dialogue that situates authorship, ethos, and authority in the context of biomedicine. Ultimately, the two authors illustrate the messiness that results when attempting to mount a discussion of these terms across intellectual registers.

This article analyzes psychiatrists’ metadiscourse about the textual standardiza­tion of discourse practices in the third edition of the American Psychiatric Asso­ciation’s diagnostic manual, DSM-III (1980). I argue that DSM-III’s “common language” represents the development of a professional style for American psy­chiatry, and I suggest that the codification of that style in DSM-III results in a handbook of usage. One of the professional aims of the textual standardization of the diagnostic manual is to position psychiatrists as scientists who use scientific standards of practice and scientific research methods to produce psychiatric knowledge. As a consequence, the chief style attributes of DSM-III help deter­mine the chief professional attributes such that the textual standardization of the profession’s diagnostic manual becomes inseparable from the standardization of psychiatric knowledge.