COMMENTARY

Docs and Fake News: Finding Our Way Out of the Echo Chamber

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Disclosures

March 10, 2021

Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape's Coronavirus Resource Center.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I'm Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

What would you say if I told you that a new study shows that individuals with acute kidney injury (AKI) due to COVID-19 recover faster than those with AKI due to other causes? What if I told you that a new study shows that a quartz crystal placed on your bedside table reduces transmission of COVID-19 by 50%?

These statements are both false, by the way, but I hope you realize that they are not false in quite the same way. There is something blatantly, aggressively false about the latter, whereas the former seems plausible, even though I basically flipped the result of a study my group just published.

But [the authors of] a new study appearing in PLOS One don't seem to get that distinction as they try to examine how good people are at detecting fake coronavirus stories. The big headline? That healthcare providers are really no better at picking out fake coronavirus stories from real ones.

False coronavirus news is a legitimate public health concern with some notably tragic deaths, like a man who died from taking chloroquine from his fish tank cleaner, or the 700 people in Iran who died from methanol toxicity.

Yes, fake news can kill. But I think those dramatic stories fail to capture the insidious nature of fake news — how it gradually erodes our very concept of reality, how it leaves us unsure of whom we can trust, if anyone. There is simply so much stuff out there; you can almost always find something to support your belief system, even if your belief happens to be false.

So figuring out how people can ferret out real news from fake news is of critical importance. Which is why I was so excited to see this study.

Briefly, researchers from Germany enrolled 2077 subjects, most of whom were university students. But there were also 213 healthcare professionals; half of them were doctors.

The participants were presented, at random, with eight news stories. Half were fake and half were true, but — and this is critical — the fake news stories were just "flips" of the real news stories.

For example, one real news story was headlined "Men are more vulnerable to coronavirus due to an enzyme," referencing our higher levels of ACE2. The fake version of the story read, "Women are more vulnerable to coronavirus due to an enzyme."


 

So, okay, I get it. Technically, the latter is false. But how are you supposed to figure it out? The only thing to clue you in is your prior knowledge of COVID epidemiology. Indeed, when the researchers analyzed that particular case, familiarity with the true news story was the number-one predictor of whether you could identify that you were seeing the false version. This was true for the vast majority of fake news stories presented.

This misses the point for me. The problem of fake coronavirus news is not that news outlets take real stories and add a few "not's" or change "men" to "women." It's that they present a reality that is inconsistent with actual reality — like stories about mask-wearing leading to CO2 toxicity, or COVID-19 being caused by cell towers and not SARS-CoV-2.

And honestly, it's not really the news outlets that are the worst at this; it's social media. I mean, there is crazy stuff out there. Here's a Wyoming state legislator stating that the death rate from coronavirus vaccines is higher than the death rate from coronavirus.

https://twitter.com/BadCOVID19Takes/status/1368050032474198018

This is not true. And there are tons more examples like this, but honestly, I don't think I should give them the airtime.

It's recognizing this stuff — hype, spin, motivated reasoning, appeals to emotion — that we need people to learn, not simple fact-checking.


 

But the PLOS One paper does remind me of something important: If we can't agree on a baseline set of facts, all is lost. Interpretation of facts is one thing; we can have disagreements about that. My concern is that in today's media environment, the echo chamber, we can't even agree on a basic set of facts to begin to form policy around. It is completely possible to live in a world where you are consistently surrounded by messaging that COVID is not real. At least until it hits a member of your family. To make it out of this, we need to find a way to pop those bubbles.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale's Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com.

Follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube

Comments

3090D553-9492-4563-8681-AD288FA52ACE
Comments on Medscape are moderated and should be professional in tone and on topic. You must declare any conflicts of interest related to your comments and responses. Please see our Commenting Guide for further information. We reserve the right to remove posts at our sole discretion.
Post as:

processing....