If you are like me, trying to find solid health information on the Internet these days makes your head spin. Sometimes I have great difficulty sifting through all the garbage- and I'm a doctor! Right now I have a "Health News" folder in my gmail account jam-packed with health articles in advertising copy format. If you've ever found yourself scrolling down through pages and pages of repetitive material wondering when exactly they are going to tell you about that secret new breakthrough remedy. . . that's advertising copy. Now why don't they just come out and say it already?
On the other hand, when I go out and look on the Web I find so many sites out there that look very authoritative and credible on the surface, but when I dig a little deeper I discover that the site seems to have a hidden agenda. For example, once I went to look for a good site for information on medicinal herbs. One of the sites that I pulled up in my google search looked very informative, and quite authoritative. You can imagine how surprised I was to find that, among the hundreds of entries for medicinal herbs, I could not find a single one that the authors recommended. Every single herb they had evaluated concluded that there "was insufficient evidence" to support its use and that it "might be dangerous." Now why would somebody go through all the trouble to create a comprehensive index of plant medicines, if they were clearly against using them?
The key to answering both these questions lay in the understanding of disinformation tactics.
Disinformation tactics work by making the truth appear false and the false appear true. Like reflections in a Hall of Mirrors, their statements are based in fact, but twisted into something else by the author. Disinformation tactics are employed both by medical establishment propagandists who would have you believe that any nondrug therapy you may find is nothing but a bunch of woo-woo, as well as hucksters and charlatans seeking to peddle their latest version of snake oil to the unwitting public.
Originally, I had envisioned writing an exhaustive list of disinformation tactics, however I decided that might run contrary to my purpose. Instead, I whittled it all down to the top three disinformation tactics out there. While various disinformation agents might use different tactics, they almost all use at least one of the following three.
I invite you to read on, and hopefully learn how to protect yourself from these unscrupulous literary magicians.
Lack of Evidence Equals Evidence of Lack
Come again? This tactic may be a mouthful, but keeping it in the forefront of your mind will prove invaluable to your efforts to improve discernment of disinformation. This one comes up all the time. If you can catch this one, you will be able to weed out the vast majority of disinformation agents.
Consider the following statement:
There is no scientific evidence showing that vitamin C cures cancer.
As of October 2010, the above statement is true. I also happen to believe that one must use caution with vitamin C supplements in certain cancer cases. However, that does not mean that there is no value to using vitamin C, whatsoever, for cancer cases in general. Do you see the difference? Notice also how I qualified my statement with a date. How many people do you suppose go back and edit their articles and posts if they are later proved false? My guess is: not many. In the case of disinformation agents, definitely zero.
In order to better illustrate let us look at some less subtle examples:
There is no scientific evidence showing that having unprotected sex can result in pregnancy.
Of course not! This is because everybody already knows that having unprotected sex can result in pregnancy. It is self-evident. Basic reproductive physiology. There is no additional evidence supporting this claim because the claim is not in question. Therefore, no studies have been done to determine whether or not it is true.
Here is another:
There is no scientific evidence showing that collard greens are a healthy food.
You might be thinking that this is also a self-evident statement. However it is not quite. To somebody who knows nothing about nutrition, it may not be immediately obvious that collard greens are a healthy food. However, to somebody who is familiar with the studies supporting the health benefits of the nutrients contained within collard greens, this is a very logical conclusion to make. Point being, it is not necessary for science to support every little statement that a health professional makes. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be very many statements being made at all. People consult health professionals in order to get their opinions. If you are only interested in facts, it would be best to consult a medical textbook.
For the last example, let's take on a big one:
There is no scientific evidence showing the existence an invisible life force (spirit, qi, chi, prana, etc.) that supports living beings.
The above statement is certainly true. However, the lack of scientific evidence does not prove that an invisible life force does not exist. I can think of all kinds of invisible forces for which it is pretty tough to demonstrate that they exist. Imagine if you filled a room with all of the world's top scientists circa 1850 and tried to explain to them how a smartphone works. I am sure most of them would think you were a total crackpot. Nowadays, there are multiple branches of physics dedicated exclusively to demonstrating the existence of invisible forces. We have devices, such as the $9 billion Large Hadron Collider right now looking for such things.
Does this mean that we should ignore scientific evidence completely? Hardly so. What is means is that we should put scientific evidence in its rightful place as one of many useful ways to understand the world around us. Rather than rely on others to tell you what to believe about the evidence, why not go look for yourself? There is a great list of quality health search engines available from the Open Directory Project that I highly recommend.
As a final thought on this first tactic, consider this. If I were to call you a pathological liar, does it make you responsible for proving that you are not? Hardly. It makes me responsible for proving that you are. Anything else is simply a disinformation tactic, and could be considered libel in a court of law.
A recent study proves...
When you see this phrase, I suggest you click the other way and never look back. Studies very rarely, if ever, prove anything. Studies lend evidence and credibility to theories, which in turn are formed from other studies which may or may not have been credible in the first place.
Most studies are garbage. Although you may be taken aback by that statement, it is exactly how science works. In order for a research institution to get enough funding to conduct a high-quality study, they must first show that it is even reasonable to investigate a particular theory. To do this, they will generally put out several highly questionable studies in order to draw attention to themselves.
In this respect, the more controversial the study the better. As the issue in question becomes more polarized and hotly debated, the research institution is increasing their chances of receiving enough funds to produce a definitive study.
Also keep in mind that even the most definitive study has its flaws. Again this is due to the intrinsic nature of scientific investigation. The more that we close in on one specific detail, the more that we have to ignore others that may be highly relevant. Even the most deeply entrenched scientific theories get overturned. Remember that Galileo guy?
A similar word that should send up a yellow flag is cause. Most studies do not determine absolute causes. They demonstrate correlations and identify risk factors. Causality is a philosophical construct that has been hotly debated for the entire history of the human race, and it is not likely to be resolved any time soon. Recent discoveries suggest that future choices can even change the past. Looks like the issue is far from settled. It is probably best to leave debates of causality to the philosophers and physicists and focus on the facts.
Here is a question that might rattle some cages: Does smoking really cause lung cancer? While most people would reply with a resounding "yes" the fact of the matter is that there are smokers who don't get lung cancer, and there are nonsmokers who do get lung cancer. It is much more accurate to say that smoking is a primary risk factor for lung cancer. I know it is not quite as "juicy" a statement, but that is exactly what should tip you off to whether the author is going for truth, or going for broke.
Abusing the Word Significant
This last one is perhaps the most tricky because it doesn't involve actually misrepresenting the facts, but rather takes advantage of the difference in context in which the term is used. See, in the realm of scientific investigation, the word significant has a very specific meaning which relates to the statistical analysis of the study. While it does lend credibility to the study, having a significant outcome does not mean "large" or "substantial" as one would normally think of it.
Here is an example:
One study investigating the use of NewCancerVaccineWXZ found a significant reduction in the occurrence of testicular cancer in men.
Taken at face value, one might be led to believe that NewCancerVaccineWXZ is a miracle drug, and that young men should even be forced to take the vaccine against their will. (For their own good, of course.) However, this is not what is meant by the authors of the study. What is meant is that the difference in the rate of occurrence of testicular cancer in men taking the vaccine was statistically significant as compared to those receiving a placebo. This may or may not correspond to something of value in a real life situation.
More confused than ever? I know, that's kind of the point. Here is another way of looking at it. The rate of testicular cancer in men is roughly 1 in 250 (0.4%). That's pretty low. Now let's say that a study of NewCancerVaccineXWZ reveals that it reduces the rate of incidence to 1 in 500 (0.2%) as compared to placebo.
One could say that is a 50% reduction in the incidence of testicular cancer, and they would be correct. However it is more accurate to say that the incidence was decreased by 0.2%. Catch my drift? Here we took something that was already at a very low chance of occurring, and reduced it even further. While certainly progress, it hardly constitutes a miracle breakthrough that should be jammed down people's throats at every opportunity. Even if we are highly confident (READ: high significance) that the vaccine actually reduced the risk of cancer, it is not by very much all things considered.
The bottom line is, when you come across a health article flaunting the word significant simply ask yourself: Was this article written for doctors and scientists or for the layperson? If the answer is layperson, there is a good chance that the author is trying to deceive you with disinformation tactic #3.
I hope you enjoyed this primer for discerning health disinformation on the Web. Keeping these three disinformation tactics in mind while you surf will surely keep you safe from the vast majority of sharks out there looking for blood. I wish you the best of luck, and safe reading!
Dr. Matthew Marturano offers
naturopathic medicine for holistic
health and wellness. He serves on the Board of Directors for the
Michigan Association of Naturopathic
Physicians and is the Director of Strategic Development for
Orchid Holistic Search.