Health Info Sources (PART THREE)

(PART THREE)

I think something that a lot of people don't know is that they set themselves up for targeting for health information, and well, actually fraud. 

It all starts because your friend Billy shares a post on social media titled "Mac & Cheese is causing cancer in 80% of children". You click the link and it may or may not show much helpful health info, but what it almost surely will include are ads, ads, and more ads galore. 

The ads are the problem. This is just a tell-tale sign that the person is more interested in making money than they are in improving your health. The problem is now you have been identified as someone who clicks on links for things like this and a cookie is going to track you around the internet. Some might call you gullible. Some might identify you as susceptible to buying products based off incomplete information. Either way you are now going to be targeting for health info and health products that are less than honest.

This is my issue with Mommy Bloggers. There are straight up fraudulent people targeting Mommy Bloggers with products promising to cure this and that, and they know how to appeal to these Mommies.

So watch out! Here are the lessons to learn

• Don't click on "sensational" sounding things. 
• If you click on something hoping for some good, unbiased health information and the page is loaded with ads, be careful! It doesn't automatically mean the page is full of untruths, but it is more likely.

Who Do I Trust For Health Related Info? (PART TWO)

(PART TWO)

When it comes to my health, and the health of my family, it is important to me that I have reliable, factual information. So based on the principles of Part One I feel the following sources provides this:

• National Institute of Health (NIH)
• MedlinePlus
• My personal primary healthcare provider (thanks Kristin!)
• Professional Medical Organizations (American Heart Association, Red Cross, etc.)

Who/what do I generally mistrust for health information:

• News organization, especially those known to politically weaponize health information or who sensationalize things
• "Mommy Bloggers" and/or the individuals who target "Mommy Bloggers" - You know that person in your neighborhood dubbed the "gossip queen?" She always has lots of "friends" because she needs people to tell her gossip too. Now put the queen and her friends all online and make it a worldwide connection with other queens and her friends and things get very scary. They don't necessarily have to be mothers or even female, but I feel this is the briefest way I can communicate those that make up this group.
• Statements of a single "Dr" that I do not personally know
• Statement on health that use the following buzzwords: "easy, fast, revolutionary, brand new, alternative, the best way..." or any other marketing sounding words.
• Websites that use a mocking tone that believing such and such is crazy
• Most memes 

Some friends I know feel their are people in the government conspiring for power and money. It is possible that some people are, but overall government health agencies actually have a pretty good track record of improving our health. Sure, you could find mistakes health agencies have made, biased people, and probably the occasional corruption, but compared to what they have gotten right I feel it is more likely you will find good health advice from the government than from other sources. Why? Because they sue the scientific method and employ similar requirements as those in my Part One post.

Sure it is possible evil people have infiltrated the government and 1,000s of people are in on some kind of secret to make us all unhealthier. If the conspiracy is so bad that evil people have taken over, then none of us really stand a chance. 

Or maybe it could it be that good-meaning people in health agencies have accidentally been blinded and that is preventing them from seeing the good in "alternative" health practices. To this I answer with "I think not." This is based on that fact that places like the NIH will accept health science studies from all kinds of sources.

(Please note - I intentionally chose to leave the spiritual/religious out of this post. I do believe in the power of the spiritual, including guidance from modern and ancient prophets on physical health, but for brevity reasons chose to emphasize other things.)

Who Do You Trust? The critical question. (PART ONE)

(PART ONE) 

Who you trust is critically important. In a world of abundant amounts of information it has become almost necessary to find shortcuts to process and summarize data, so that you have time to take in all the information you want to process. 

Sound bites, memes, TikTok video clips, and similar stuff have become huge sources of "life hacks" AKA shortcuts of learning. (Ironically, many people will never read my thoughts here because this is too long to spend time reading. Ha ha ha.)

But can you trust this information?

It is a fact that information can only be one of two things: factual or false. Yes a sentence can include two claims and one of them is factual and one is false, but each idea individually is one or the other; it can't be both! If something is 98% true and 2% false, then it is still false in my book. When facts and falsehoods get mixed it is particularly dangerous. Mixing the two can either be done purposefully or innocently, and most times it is not clear which is the case.

So we come back to the question of trust. How do you figure out what to believe and not believe?

Here are guiding principles I have chosen to follow when examining information. These are somewhat in the order.

1. UNSENSATIONAL - Does the claim seem to good to be true or to be sensationalized? Then it probably warrants a deeper look.
2. RELIABLE SOURCE - Does the source have a good track record for providing accurate info?
3. AUTHENTIC SOURCE - Is the fact really the thing it purports to be and by the source it claims to be from? (This one is a HUGE red flag for me. When someone says my friend's friend heard...)
4. ACCURATE - Can the claim be corroborated with other reliable sources? (i.e. peer reviewed)
5. FAIRNESS - Is the info represented fairly and not taken out of context?

I have several good friends that use "follow the money" as a litmus test for a source's credibility. I do think this is wise advise, but just because someone funds something that could potentially benefit them doesn't mean the results are always skewed. In a capitalistic society it would make sense that those who fund something, like a health study for example, would be someone who could benefit from the results of the study. So I don't feel good about throwing out the results of a study based on the funding source alone.