Articles related to MEDICAL MISINFORMATION

According to the January 2023 Cochrane report, “…in the community studies, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness…” Were reviews delayed in publication to support a masking viewpoint? Read the summary and collected interviews here.

Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey The fact that more than half of the 1,494 survey respondents agreed that “It seems like everything causes cancer” underscores the challenge society faces in separating real causes from mythological ones as a result of widespread information. Contrary to their counterparts, those who believed in conspiracies, disapproved of the COVID-19 vaccination, or supported alternative medicine were more likely to support the fictitious causes of cancer while being less likely to support the real causes of cancer. These findings imply a clear link between online disinformation and ensuing unhealthy choices, which may account for an additional portion of cancer that is preventable.

Because a growing number of Medicare-eligible patients — currently 48% of 58 million beneficiaries — are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, the problem of “no prior authorization” happens increasingly frequently these days. Some medical professionals believe that before their gullible patients switch their coverage, they should make a special effort to inform them of the drawbacks of these plans.

This interview with Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto, highlights the key points from his presentation at the 2022 NEI Congress. Dr. McIntyre discusses the different clinical presentations and gives an overview of the most effective pharmacologic treatments for each disorder.

Some experts responded to the recently published study, stating that “These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” and that the study “will be used to justify policies of supplying healthcare workers … with inadequate protection.”

Most people would agree that a doctor’s behavior is unprofessional, arguably unethical, and certainly unacceptable when he or she uses the wrong treatment, whether willfully or through ignorance, or when they use the right treatment incorrectly. What, then, should we think about researchers who use the wrong techniques, use the right techniques wrongly, misinterpret their results, report their results selectively, cite the literature selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions?