The fingers are being pointed at social media as the biggest cause for medical misinformation. Clearly the pandemic brought out these criticisms to the forefront. There is a “Journal of Medical Internet Research” borne from the need to have unbiased, scientifically based, but understandable information that the average patient can understand. I have said in numerous ways, that if I did not believe in individualized medicine, I should throw my stethoscope away. We are not all constructed equally. The genetics and epigenetics are unique to us. This should be blatantly obvious, and I scratch my head anytime someone pushes a medical treatment on a patient and assuredly promises a good outcome. I can give some plain examples that make sense. In the arena of cancer traditional approaches of chemo, radiation, or surgeries are uniquely presented to the patient within protocols to account for age, weight, kidney or cardiac issues, and patient choice. The tumor type alone does not dictate the breadth of treatment. The patient factors do. If there are integrative techniques, these come to the table to optimize the body for battle. If someone’s cholesterol is high and they opt out of medication, that is a choice, not an anti-cholesterol medication movement. If a woman wants to have a home delivery with a doula, it is not an anti-obstetric-care-in-a hospital statement. It is what resonates with the style of health management in the household. Just like you could not criticize a vegan for not eating meat, or a celiac patient for avoiding gluten, or a Jewish person for requiring Kosher foods, these unique attributes come to the table in medical decision-making. Certainly, in functional medicine, the idea is to get your body to function well starting with your own personal blueprints and what works with your lifestyle.
In walks the public health and safety concerns of, for example, a pandemic. Can we really determine the good for each person as we decry a treatment that is good for all? Can they be one and the same–good for the individual and good for all? Possibly. How do we determine this? Who is the keeper of the unbiased understandable information for each person to understand benefits and risks to brand-new strategies? I am in the unique position to understand and vet information to novel treatments. Novel treatments , in the early rollouts may not be good or bad. They are simply innovative , and yet-to-be-determined. I have used every vehicle I could get my hands on to understand new testing and treatments, so that I can digest the information and present it to patients. I also use social media heavily to conduct my business, research, and social life. All age and gender groups use social media to seek out health information. The “Journal for Internet Research” (The “Journal”) quotes research to suggest that while there may be usefulness with these social media outlets, ‘misleading health information may spread more easily than scientific knowledge.’ As I share my experience and observations, I now realize that “health misinformation” seems to be in the eye of the beholder. The nebulous determiner has no panel of experts, nor governing board, and loosely throws this term around, and paints a broad brush to anyone who really is scientific in their approach to sharing health information.
The ownership of the social media platforms may ban large amounts of material. If there is an viewpoint or agenda that does not comport with their ideology, they stop flow of information, and ban content. And these same outlets, then will turn around, and criticize those trying to provide “the other side of the story” as presenting misinformation. For instance, just a simple discussion about benefits of CBD (do not forget that I am a physician and see lots of patients integratively) got banned from TikTok as spreading “misinformation.” What? Let alone, on YouTube, discussions about anything related to the pandemic, treatments, outcomes gets flagged with a ‘misinformation’ statement. Perhaps these platforms want to avoid controversy, but in avoiding another side to the story, they effectively ran a misinformation campaign, or a “lack of information” campaign. If there is no outlet for scientists, physicians, reputable drug manufacturers and those running trials, how can this side of the social community be told there is a spread of misinformation? The bias has been in omitting information, as I have found. Many topics are shut down. No discourse is allowed, and THIS is what starts a misinformation campaign. Through a physician’s eyes the social platforms do not always allow evolving medical information, and therefore, misinformation gets propagated by the untrained, non-medical constituency. The “Journal” states that the biggest categories of medical misinformation revolve around ‘vaccines, diet and eating disorders, drugs and new tobacco products, pandemics and communicable diseases, non-communicable diseases, and medical treatments and health interventions’ That is quite a lot!!!
Yesteryear, news was presented in an unbiased fashion, and tv shows were left to entertain. A few of the great reporters include Walter Cronkite, Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer, Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings. They had teams at their disposal to get well-sourced information. Today, I would include many of the news programs to be more of a social media platform disguised as news. One-sided, heavily politicized, persistent and repetitive themes cast out to the masses. These masses of people only have this source for information, and “alternative viewpoints” will not come into the homes of the average American. Sensationalism, fear, and entertainment draw people in. This news becomes the gospel of current and “true” events. Even if sensationalism has been exposed, it is too late. The damage is done. The one-sided campaign was effective. And why am I sitting here writing this blog? I am a licensed physician for 28 years with two fellowships in addition to my board certification. I have spent those years poring over literature and facts and research. I know when the information is bypassing the public. Patients are looking to the licensed scientists in the crowd to give them the proper information. We are sifting through the social media platforms that do have invaluable information that can support patients in a quick, easy way. I daresay, though, that the playing field needs to be balanced and the “fact checkers” who remain nameless and faceless, need to remove themselves from bias before banning materials. Before telling the public that trusted scientists and physicians are “spreading misinformation”, they should uncloak themselves, and get the debates going. We as individuals deserve this. We are not clones. What can benefit one may not benefit the other. Give us the facts. Keep an open exchange on the social media platforms without politics and judgment. Medical decisions are private and personal.
