Which voices led medical misinformation in the early stages of COVID?
UC study: Researchers unpack how convoluted messaging surrounded a drug therapy early in the pandemic
Peer-Reviewed PublicationIMAGE: JEFFREY BLEVINS, PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF UC'S DEPARTMENT OF JOURNALISM view more
CREDIT: UC CREATIVE + BRAND
In the early and thus far most devastating stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists were at a near loss on how to treat the deadly disease. The public was desperate for information. Consequently, two antimalarial drugs ― chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine ― were the subject of a Twitter storm in the marketplace of ideas known as social media. The medication was lauded as a potential cure: There was run on the medication, creating a shortage for those who used it for other medical indications, such as lupus. One person died and another was hospitalized after taking chloroquine as a prophylactic.
Although the drug therapy turned out not to be the magic bullet, researchers from the University of Cincinnati wanted to know what influences caused so many people to believe this therapy was indeed the answer, despite warnings from leaders in the scientific community that the efficacy of the drug was unfounded. Their findings appear in the journal Social Media + Society.
Supported by the UC Office of Research’s Digital Futures Initiative and with funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, a multidisciplinary team analyzed over 100 million Twitter posts related to COVID-19. By focusing on tweets, likes and retweets citing the drugs by name, the team learned that science and politics were directly competing against each other; and the loudest voice in the social media platform, then President Donald Trump, contributed greatly to the falsehood, even though he was not the originator of the claims.
“The research attempted to provide more clarity between misinformation, disinformation and b.s.,” says the study’s lead author Jeffrey Blevins, professor and head of UC’s Department of Journalism. The distinction, he says, is that disinformation is an intentional act of deception, misinformation is ignorance of fact, and bull---- is not caring whether the information is true or false based on indifference to the claim or allegiance to its origin. Examples of the latter going around the social sphere were that the virus was caused by 5G wireless, that African Americans were immune and that a certain type of toothpaste was the cure.
“We have to be aware that there are all sorts of actors on social media, and they are not all credible; just because something is trending or in the echo chamber, it tends to make it sound more credible,” says Blevins. “The sheer volume of the message or the fact that something goes viral doesn’t necessarily make it true,” he says, noting that the drug therapy claims fell into the category of misinformation because there was some evidence based in science that it could be useful.
After all, even the president boasted of taking it without harm.
However, it was the president’s tweets about the drug therapy and the feedback loop between Fox News and Trump followers, Blevins says, that propagated the falsehood of a potential cure, making it “a political issue instead of a medical issue.”
Another finding, Blevins says, is that the news media focused more on fact-checking the president for misinformation, instead of the true originators: misguided physicians and conspiracy theorists such as QAnon. “[Trump] got a lot of attention because he was the most significant actor in the spread of misinformation.” But what was ignored by news media, researchers say, was where the misinformation originated. “There wasn’t any real discussion about the truth,” says Blevins.
Additionally, the UC study produced charts and graphs that map out which voices dominated the messaging. “When you see the interrelations of Twitter handles mapped out with color and shape in the network visualizations, you actually perform a type of analysis that couldn't be done before,” says study co-author James Lee, associate vice provost for digital scholarship and director of UC’s Digital Scholarship Center. These visuals, he says, are illuminating: “If you just read the tweets, you do not see the impact. Data visualization really allowed us to hone in on who the real influences were in this case.”
In the past, Blevins says, “the theory of the marketplace of ideas has been that we don’t filter anything and eventually the truth will emerge, but what we are seeing here is that it’s not the case. We don’t have a system to resolve disparate claims about the truth.”
DOI
10.1177/20563051211024977
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Data/statistical analysis
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
People
ARTICLE TITLE
Shouting Into the Wind: Medical Science versus “B.S.” in the Twitter Maelstrom of Politics and Misinformation About Hydroxychloroquine
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
23-Jun-2021
New book helps readers spot online health scams
IMAGE: UBC PROFESSOR BERNIE GARRETT view more
CREDIT: PHOTO: UBC FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCE
Internet health scams have increased in recent years, often spread through social media and causing untold harm, according to a new book by UBC nursing professor, Dr. Bernie Garrett.
The New Alchemists focuses on some of the many deceptive healthcare and marketing techniques used to mislead people—and offers readers tips to avoid falling prey to scammers.
Dr. Garrett has more than 35 years of experience in nursing and research on health care practices. In this Q&A, he explains why online health scams are so pervasive, shares recent examples, and gives advice to minimize their impacts.
Why is your book called The New Alchemists?
The alchemists are best known for trying to turn metal into gold, but they also sought to develop an immortality potion. These ancient philosophers acquired a reputation for being charlatans and crooks, and so the title fits very well with what we’re seeing today where people are marketing various fake remedies.
Why is it important to understand and detect health scams?
Deliberately selling a product using false marketing or spreading false information can have serious health consequences. Probably the worst examples are the fake cancer clinics that sell remedies or treatments for cancer patients who are desperately searching for solutions.
We’ve also seen hugely deceptive practices in the pharmaceutical industry, such as lawsuits over the mis-marketing of drugs such as OxyContin or Abilify.
Stranger examples include the 18-year-old fake doctor in Florida who operated for a number of years, as well as bizarre fake health machines, and alternative practitioners who market useless therapies using false claims.
Why are people seemingly deceived so easily?
Scam marketers are well-versed in modern advertising techniques and the psychology of persuasion. They know all the triggers that can help sell a product. Examples include making it appear that a treatment is scarce, with language like “supplies are running out” or “buy it quickly now before it’s gone.” They often link their product to positive images, such as photos of mothers, or claim that a product is “healthy” or “natural”.
There are certainly conditions that the medical field does not have good treatments for and so people seek alternatives. Unfortunately, this can also make them easier prey for deceptive practitioner
CAPTION
New book by UBC nursing professor, Dr. Bernie Garrett focuses on some of the many deceptive healthcare and marketing techniques used to mislead people—and offers readers tips to avoid falling prey to scammers.
CREDIT
Photo: Hammersmith Health Books
Have these deceptive practices proliferated during COVID-19?
They definitely have proliferated, and this has been aided by social media. You’ve only got to look at the success of the anti-vaccination campaign, where we see people being falsely advised that they will become magnetic or infertile or claiming vaccines have not been tested. Unfortunately, people can post misinformation on social media with no real consequences.
How can people protect themselves from internet health scams?
As we outline in the book and in previous research, look for trigger words, such as if the marketer suggests that something is only available for a short time or from this one site. Watch for claims that mention “science hasn’t caught up with this” or “amazing results”. Be very wary of claims that are based on personal testimonies or celebrity endorsement.
Check the source of information. Use established, reliable sources such as Health Canada, the World Health Organization or even the FDA in the United States. These type of sources are certainly more trustworthy than a blog post from relatives or friends or people you’ve never heard of on social media.
It’s also important for all of us to lobby for better health regulation and advertising standards of practice.
We do need to take an interest in our health and in what we are being told. Deception is more widespread than people think, but you can take some simple steps to avoid getting caught up in it.
Overall, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
No comments:
Post a Comment