The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated a vast landscape of misinformation about many topics, science and health chief among them.
Since then, information overload continues unabated, and many people are rightfully confused by an onslaught of conflicting health information. Even expert advice is often contradictory.
On top of that, people sometimes deliberately distort research findings to promote a certain agenda. For example, trisodium phosphate is a common food additive in cakes and cookies that is used to improve texture and prevent spoilage, but wellness influencers exploit the fact that a similarly named substance is used in paint and cleaning products to suggest it’s dangerous to your health.
Such claims can proliferate quickly, creating widespread misconceptions and undermining trust in legitimate scientific research and medical advice. Social media’s rise as a news and information source further fuels the spread of pseudoscientific views.
Misinformation is rampant in the realm of health and nutrition. Findings from nutrition research is rarely clear-cut because diet is just one of many behaviors and lifestyle factors affecting health, but the simplicity of using food and supplements as a cure-all is especially seductive.
I am an assistant professor specializing in medical education and science communication. I also train scientists and future health care professionals how to communicate their science to the general public.
In my view, countering the voices of social media influencers and health activists promoting pseudoscientific health claims requires leaning into the science of disease prevention. Extensive research has produced a body of evidence-based practices and public health measures that have consistently been shown to improve the health of millions of people around the world. Evaluating popular health claims against the yardstick of this work can help distinguish which ones are based on sound science.
Navigating the terrain of tangled information
Conflicting information can be found on just about everything we eat and drink.
That’s because a food or beverage is rarely just good or bad. Instead, its health effects can depend on everything from the quantity a person consumes to their genetic makeup. Hundreds of scientific studies describe coffee’s health benefits and, on the flip side, its health risks. A bird’s-eye view can point in one direction or another, but news articles and social media posts often make claims based on a single study.
Things can get even more confusing with dietary supplements because people who promote them often make big claims about their health benefits. Take apple cider vinegar, for example – or ACV, if you’re in the know.
Apple cider vinegar has been touted as an all-natural remedy for a variety of ailments, including digestive issues, urinary health and weight management. Indeed, some studies have shown that it might help lower cholesterol, in addition to having other health benefits, but overall those studies have small sample sizes and are inconclusive.
Advocates of this substance often claim that one particular component of it – the cloudy sediment at the bottom of the bottle termed “the mother” – is especially beneficial because of the bacteria and yeast it contains. But there is no research that backs the claim that it offers any health benefits.
One good rule of thumb is that health hacks that promise quick fixes are almost always too good to be true. And even when supplements do offer some health benefits under specific circumstances, it’s important to remember that they are largely exempt from Food and Drug Administration regulations. That means the ingredients on their labels might contain more or less of the ingredients promised or other ingredients not listed, which can potentially cause harms such as liver toxicity.
It’s also important to keep in mind that the global dietary supplements industry is worth more than $150 billion per year, so companies – and wellness influencers – selling supplements have a financial stake in convincing the public of their value.
How nutrition science gets twisted
There’s no doubt that good nutrition is fundamental for your health. Studies consistently show that a balanced diet containing a variety of essential nutrients can help prevent chronic diseases and promote overall well-being.
For instance, minerals such as calcium and iron support bone health and oxygen circulation in the blood, respectively. Proteins are essential for muscle repair and growth, and healthy fats, like those found in avocados and nuts, are vital for brain health.
However, pseudoscientific claims often twist such basic facts to promote the idea that specific diets or supplements can prevent or treat illness. For example, vitamin C is known to play a role in supporting the immune system and can help reduce the duration and severity of colds.
But despite assertions to the contrary, consuming large quantities of vitamin C does not prevent colds. In fact, the body needs only a certain amount of vitamin C to function properly, and any excess is simply excreted.
Companies sometimes claim their supplement is “scientifically proven” to cure illness or boost brain function, with no credible research to back it up.
Some companies overstate the benefits while underplaying the hazards.
For example, wellness influencers have promoted raw milk over pasteurized milk as a more natural and nutritious choice, but consuming it is risky. Unpasteurized milk can contain harmful bacteria that leads to gastrointestinal illness and, in some cases, much more serious and potentially life-threatening diseases such as avian influenza, or bird flu.
Such dietary myths aren’t harmless. Reliance on nutrition alone can lead to neglecting other critical aspects of health, such as regular medical checkups and lifesaving vaccinations.
The lure of dietary myths has led people with cancer to replace proven science-backed treatments, such as chemotherapy or radiation, with unproven and misleading nutrition programs.
How to spot less-than-solid science
Pseudoscience exploits your insecurities and emotions, taking advantage of your desire to live the healthiest life possible.
While the world around you may be uncertain and out of your control, you want to believe that at the very least, you have control over your own health. This is where the wellness industry steps in.
What makes pseudoscientific claims so confusing is that they use just enough scientific jargon to sound believable. Supplements or powders that claim to “boost immunity” often list ingredients such as adaptogens and superfoods. While these words sound real and convincing, they actually don’t mean anything in science. They are terms created by the wellness industry to sell products.
I’ve researched and written about reliable ways to distinguish science facts from false health claims. To stay alert and find credible information, I’d suggest you follow a few key steps.
First, check your emotions – strong emotional reactions, such as fear and anger, can be a red flag.
Next, check that the author has experience or expertise in the field of the topic. If they’re not an expert, they might not know what they are talking about. It’s always a good idea to make sure the source is reputable – ask yourself, would this source be trusted by scientists?
Finally, search for references that back up the information. If very little or nothing else exists in the science world to back up the claims, you may want to put your trust in a different source.
Following these steps will separate the facts from fake news and empower you to make evidence-based decisions.
Aimee Pugh Bernard is Assistant Professor of Immunology and Microbiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
© The Conversation
25 Comments
Jay
Yet another thinly-veiled propaganda piece straight from the pharmaceutical conglomerate playbook - because God forbid people realize that real food, exercise, and proper lifestyle choices are far more effective than whatever overpriced pill or synthetic supplement they're pushing this week.
Yes, as they try YET AGAIN to convince us that health is so complicated that we should just hand over our wallets and trust the "experts" (as they rake in billions), they conveniently skip over the fact that PREVENTION through proper diet, exercise, and lifestyle choices has always been the real key to long-term health. But of course, they can't profit off people making SMART CHOICES, so they downplay the effectiveness of natural prevention while pushing expensive treatments that keep you just sick enough to need more.
It's absolutely disgusting how they dismiss food and supplements as "seductive," when their entire industry is built on seducing people into lifelong dependency on drugs.
Raw Beer
This article does a good job explaining how much of the nutrition misinformation started and continues today:
A short history of saturated fat: the making and unmaking of a scientific consensus
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36477384/
It's clear that the misinformation is not limited to podcasts and "influencers". Much of it comes from "respected medical institutes", who parrot what their funders tell them.
Hawk
Great article. Lots of true and useful information.
Raw Beer
It was indeed illuminating to many how the mainstream narrative was filled with misinformation about the dangers of repurposed drugs, the safety and effectiveness of the shots and new drugs, masks, social distancing, virus origin....
So people increasingly started to rely on social media. Most of it is also filled with misinformation and clickbait. But there are also many very informative resources from real experts.
Strange, I spent years listening to nutrition related advice online, and I have yet to come across this one...
virusrex
This makes no sense, you understand that supplements are controlled also by pharmaceutical companies, right? so what kind of propaganda would it be when it heavily criticizes those supplements? even very basic understanding clearly makes this nonsensical.
For all the benefits they have there are many diseases for which pharmaceutical interventions are simply much more effective, this invalid over generalization is precisely what the article refers to as misinformation.
There is a reason why expertise is recognized, and when the alternative is to blindly trust your wallet to people without any qualification or that have been found misleading people then it is a perfectly valid recomendation. Specially when the first option by medical professionals is to recommend lifestyle changes, drugs and surgeries come only later.
Food and supplements as panacea is what is false and can be seductive, people die every day because they reject effective measures and treatments and just baselessly claiming this is not wrong only betray a heavy antiscientific bias that lead to the irresponsible advice to patients about ignoring what the doctors recommend without ever basing that irresponsible advice on any evidence.
virusrex
The scientific method allows for continuous improvement of the recommendations, yet there are still people that persist on believing (or worse recommending) baseless things based only on their own profit, like unhealthy ketogenic diets or the supposed lack of risk from cholesterol or excess of salt.
No misinformation there, it has been proved completely that the drugs like HCQ and ivermectin provide zero benefits and instead extra risks for patients. The fate of the disgraced Raoult is a very good example of the terribly low quality of a person that is required to mislead patients to put their health or lives at risk just to get fame and money.
And those that ignored the scientific recommendations had more complications and die more, because social media is rife with misinformation that greatly increased their risk. Objectively the worst option.
Jimizo
Who from?
Is your PhD and/or current area of scientific research related to nutrition?
Can you advise other people working in this area how they can steer clear of the nefarious types looking to get their tentacles around them?
Could be invaluable advice going forward for some.
Hiro
You've got that right, in particular some of the stuff coming out of Harvard lately is ridiculous.
By the way, TSP is TSP, the difference is in the purity: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/168899/what-is-the-difference-between-technical-grade-and-food-grade-tripotassium-phosp
Jay
Unfortunately completely wrong yet again, as you continue to conveniently ignore the fact that pharmaceutical giants only push supplements when they can patent, overprice, and monopolize them.
Meanwhile, they smear unpatentable NATURAL remedies as "unproven" or "dangerous" despite centuries of successful use.
But of course, you haven't actually provided evidence that these hit pieces are unbiased - you just assume it, because thinking any deeper might force you to question the industry that profits off keeping people sick.
Sadly, your argument simply boils down to "Trust the corporations!"
Raw Beer
Initial recommendations were not simply wrong. They were deceptive and influenced by money. I've seen no evidence indicating that they have suddenly achieved greater integrity. I'm looking forward to RFKjr getting rid of the corruption in these "respected institutes of science/medicine".
Regarding Raoult, you're confusing being "disgraced" with being attacked by powerful people. I would be much more worried about getting health advice from people who need preemptive pardons.
virusrex
Not false, just you ignoring something well know for a long time already
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/the-link-between-big-pharma-and-the-supplement-industry
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna31188920
It does not have to be "every" supplement, that is a false claim you are making, as long as the vast majority of the supplements are produced by the companies it is perfectly valid to say they are the ones controlling the market.
As it was easy to prove there is nothing wrong with the quoted text, you not being able to accept it do not make the evidence disappear, nor the many other arguments you are accepting by not addressing them.
Blood letting, trepanation, are also examples of things that were natural, but were always unproven and dangerous, your mistake is called the naturalistic fallacy, which consist on pretending that if something is natural it is more likely to be beneficial when that is not true at all, plenty of things are completely natural and are extremely dangerous, which is why medical science test and characterize things to prove any kind of benefit, the rest are the things that were not able to be proved to offer any benefit, not matter how long time people used them.
You are the one making the claim the article is biased, then you are the one that have to produce the evidence. I can simply say this, that you are making baseless claims and the absolute lack of references to support your point becomes the argument that proves it.
No, my argument is that nameless people in the internet claiming things without any evidence are not worth any attention, speciallly when they only repeat impossible conspiracies that involve all medical institution of the world, the same kind of excuse flat earthers or creationist try to use when they can't present any evidence.
virusrex
Even if that is the case that still completely defeats your point, because the improvement and clarification was done by scientists, you provided proof that the scientific method works and that your claims that something like this happening could not happen are obviously false.
Because of deep antiscientific bias, systematically rejecting anything science says that you don't like means that for you (but not for anybody with common sense and a rational approach) science will never be right.
Seeing how he has repeatedly lied, contradicted himself, choosen profit over lives and participated in deeply corrupted companies this is not going to happen anytime soon. The current administration instantly choose to support the pharmaceutical companies by eliminating drug price capping, and RFKjr have said that he will do anything he is ordered to do, no matter what it is.
No confusion, he is disgraced because it was proved he repeatedly lied, fabricated data, falsified results, conducted unethical human experimentation and abused his power to try to hide his immoral and unethical actions, the way he tried to fool the world about HCQ is just one of the many things he did for personal profit.
Jimizo
This is a key point.
How do you think we can achieve greater honesty, sincerity and integrity among the science community?
You managed it in your professional career in research ( and I’m sure your colleagues are as principled ) despite the huge pressure from big something or other.
How can we achieve a higher level of honesty?
Genuine question and I believe it to be a fundamental one.
Jay
Wrong yet again, because your mistake is called the pharmaceutical fallacy - the idea that if something is patented, expensive, and "FDA-approved", it must be superior, despite the fact that many blockbuster drugs are rushed to market, later recalled, or come with a laundry list of side effects worse than the condition they're treating. You're also pretending the pharmaceutical conglomerates' testing process is some sacred, incorruptible system - when PROFIT is involved, manipulation of studies, selective reporting, and aggressive suppression of competing alternatives are all well-documented tactics.
So no, blindly dismissing natural remedies because some ancient treatments were misguided isn't an argument - it's just your excuse to ignore anything that threatens the pharmaceutical MONOPOLY.
Moderator
Readers, please stop bickering.
Raw Beer
The initial recommendations also came from scientists. Where do you think they get their funding? You do know that most nutrition research is funded by corporations...
Reminds me of Fauci, when he said that he is the science, and when we criticize him we are criticizing science. So I guess Biden gave science a pardon...
Raw Beer
Surely, the corporations wouldn't lie, would they? Yeah, they've been fined billions for falsifying data and bribing officials. But that was in the past, clearly they've learned their lesson...
Raw Beer
No, I've always said that the science has been corrected. But corporate money is controlling the narrative by funding most of nutrition research, publishers, media, and the "respected institutes". My views are based on science, but not the mainstream narrative that calls itself "science".
BertieWooster
Remember Thalidomide? That was scientifically "validated" and judged OK for general use. There followed babies lacking arms.
Jay
Yep, absolutely. Thalidomide was a prime example of the pharmaceutical establishment assuring the public something was "safe and effective" (where have we heard that before?), right up until thousands of babies were born with DEVASTATING birth defects. It's a chilling reminder that blind trust in so-called "validated science", without scrutiny or accountability, can often have catastrophic consequences.
virusrex
No, it was not, it was evaluated and stopped for use precisely because of a lack of safety data that was required, That is why patients were not affected in the US, because the system worked as intended.
What part of the claims of the article can you say have not vetted properly within the system? without that, there is no merit on the argument the professionals can be wrong.
In the case of the information of the article is the same, on one side the scientific and medical professionals work tirelessly to provide solid advice with evidence behind it, while people without any kind of evidence simply make up things for profit and spread those claims even when it puts patients at risk because it mislead them to take much worse decisions for their health.
virusrex
One problem that has been happening with more and more frequency, specially with articles of "the conversation" is that outlets allow people to make contradictory claims about their articles without any kind of control, thus letting misinformation completely destroy the efforts of the professionals whose opinion is written on the article.
Unfortunately this apparently has become so common that even the original experts are complaining about it, after all what is the point to try and inform the people when the outlets simply let people openly lie about it and mislead people?
iknowall
No, Nutrilite is the largest supplement maker and it is not controlled by pharmaceutical companies, so you are wrong with your conspiracy.
Why perpetuate the problem then?
Raw Beer
In other words, you don't want anyone to question the mainstream narrative pushed by "the conversation". Science (real science) must be questioned and challenged.
Also, many of us are bringing up information from top researchers and doctors, much more qualified than the assistant professor of immunology and microbiology who wrote the above article.
mikeylikesit
Yes, let’s trust the scientific establishment on diet recommendations…the same establishment that gave us the food pyramid, that demonized fat in the diet as unhealthy, that encouraged high-carb diets instead…yeah, that establishment.
The scientific establishment denizens are interested in one thing…their own careers. They want to get published; they want to get hired; they want to receive grants. Whatever is popular in the field at the moment, no matter how contrary it is to good health, the majority of scientists will publish it because that’s what wins publication, jobs, and grants. There’s a reason why 50-80% of published science is irreproducible and often outright fraudulent. The negative consequences are visited not on the scientists, but on people’s health.