UPDATED: May 17, 2025
Welcome to the Healthy Living Is Good Medicine Newsletter, a totally free, health education publication covering a wide variety of topics with original articles intended to help people lead healthier and more fulfilling lives.
A widely held view is that it’s easy to tell when politicians are lying: Simply look to see if their lips are moving. Sadly, there is actually a trend in politics that’s moving away from fact-based information toward a kind of “truthiness” that appeals to people’s intuitions, according to a 2025 study.
A computational analysis of U.S. congressional speeches has revealed a glaring deficiency in claims supported by factual evidence. Honest and truthful decision-making is crucial for the responsible governance of democracies and holding its elected representatives accountable, yet the staggering abundance of falsehoods disseminated by the current President have also made lying “business as usual” for many of the government officials under his administration.
Pursuing the Elusive Truth
Lies are cheap, easy to manufacture, and can be produced and disseminated very quickly. The quote, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes,” is often attributed to Mark Twain, but its wisdom is likely far older.
Lying involves the communication of information that is intended to deceive or mislead and is known by the liar to not be true. According to truth-seeker and neuroscientist Sam Harris, “…most forms of private vice and public evil are kindled and sustained by lies.” In his book, Lying, Harris makes the case for how telling the truth can simplify our lives and far outweigh the cost of lies to ourselves, to others, and to society. Moral injuries can occur when someone lies, or is lied to.
Disseminating misinformation, deliberately spreading disinformation and falsehoods, and sharing conspiracy theories require little in the way of talent or intelligence. Much damage can be done with only a few swipes and clicks. The online proliferation of lies, half-truths, and deliberately misleading information can make it very difficult for people to figure out what sources they can actually trust.
Compared to fabrications, well-researched and fact-checked information takes a lot of time and effort to publish. The author's reputation for personal and professional integrity could be at stake if they get something wrong. Even when they take great pains to present valid information, there may still be room for nit-picking by those who delight in being contrarians.
One of the biggest problems with the unreliability of information found on social media is that their algorithms promote posts that have an emotional hook, and are therefore more likely to appeal to our cognitive biases. For an exposé of a blatant example, see Dr. Wilson’s concise analysis:
My Inspiration for Writing this Article
I recently wrote a Substack Note about the accuracy of laboratory-performed PCR tests for diagnosing COVID-19, when using properly collected and transported specimens, and when the testing is conducted in accordance with established standards. In contrast, at-home, rapid antigen tests may need to be repeated a few times over the course of several days in order to increase one’s confidence in their results, as explained in my Post:
One person replied to my Note with a link to a Post falsely claiming the CDC had recalled COVID-19 PCR tests because they couldn’t reliably differentiate between the coronavirus and the influenza virus. After providing three fact-checking articles1 that debunked the claim, and pointing out that one needs to be wary of their information sources, the response I got was, “Well, how do I know if I can trust you?”
My immediate impulse was to say something snarky, but then I pondered what was actually a legitimate question. A more thoughtful answer would be to hold one's trust in abeyance, pending independent confirmation of the information using reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed scientific journals with a high impact factor, or websites that employ professional fact-checkers to investigate questionable claims. Dr. Richman has more to say about unreliable medical information on social media:
Research Can Be Faulty
The impact factor is a journal rating that can range from 0 to over 100. It is calculated from the number of citations received by articles published in the previous two years, divided by the total number of articles the journal published during that time. The metric is indicative of the credence given the journal by others within the scientific community. You can easily Google a journal’s impact factor.
As I’ve mentioned many times before, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (RCT) is considered the “gold standard” of medical research. However, any RCT should be viewed with suspicion if published in a journal with a low impact factor, or if it does not make its datasets available. An independent analysis by a biostatistician who is not involved in the study can reduce the likelihood of a biased analysis.
With RCTs, many post-randomization biases can be introduced. Conflicts of interest in research abound, especially when companies with products to sell employ the researchers and finance the studies. It’s no surprise when the company scientists publish results that are favorable for their employer. Be particularly wary of any trials that have not been previously registered.
It is also important to take into account effect size (the magnitude of the effect) and the number needed to treat (how many subjects are needed before a notable difference occurs against the comparison group) before deciding which studies to believe, and which ones should be questioned.
Before I even bother getting into the nitty-gritty of a study, I look near the end for disclosures regarding its funding, and who the authors work for. Any study worthy of further consideration will include in its discussion section a breakdown of its strengths, limitations, and weaknesses.
Even the most rigorous studies cannot provide slam-dunk conclusions. Any conclusions that don’t say “further research is warranted” should be viewed with suspicion. Correlations (ie. the findings are “associated with” or “linked to”) don’t mean that a causal relationship between an intervention and an outcome exists. Studies can have too small a sample size (“underpowered”), or be of too short a duration, to detect a meaningful effect. Even when the results are statistically significant, it doesn’t automatically mean that their findings are clinically relevant.
Striving for Accuracy
You may have noticed that my articles are replete with references to science-based publications, yet readers rarely click on the links that I provide. Does that lack of verification signify that I'm already considered a trustworthy source? In sincerely hope that people will recognize that I'm making a good-faith effort to back up the information I publish with peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals.
Unlike politicians and con artists, I have nothing to gain by lying to the public. I have no financial incentives for publishing my newsletter; there are no paid subscriptions, and I have no services or supplements to sell. My reward is knowing that people are subscribing because they find my articles worth reading, and know that the information comes from a trustworthy source.
Because of that commitment, I make frequent updates to my archived Posts whenever relevant new information comes to my attention, or if I or someone else discover errors. Please let me know if you find any, and I will do my best to correct them. I consider my published work to be an important part of my legacy, I wouldn’t want to sully my reputation by misleading my readers.
That's just how I roll. The fact of the matter is that even highly educated people, with all sorts of credentials, can still say and do stupid things. I should know, because I am one of those. Maybe that’s why I obsessively strive for accuracy in what I write, and make frequent updates to articles that I’ve already posted.
One thing that truly boggles my mind are medical doctors who are against childhood vaccines. There have been decades of research, including large-scale epidemiological studies and meta-analyses, consistently finding no evidence of vaccines causing autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Doctors who promote vaccine disinformation do not deserve a license to practice medicine.
Cultivating Critical Thinking Skills
Everyone can benefit from using critical thinking skills in their daily life. That can help is discern truths from all the falsehoods. We are constantly barraged with distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies. From double-speaking or pathologically lying politicians, to bogus claims about herbal remedies, dietary supplements, and cancer cures, it's a misinformation jungle out there, and a savage one at that.
Almost all TV commercials and other forms of advertising are full of hogwash, cleverly designed to persuade people to buy things that they don't really need, or act against their own interests. As Carl Sagan noted, “There are huge advertising budgets only when there's no difference between the products. If the products really were different, people would buy the one that's better. Advertising teaches people not to trust their judgment. Advertising teaches people to be stupid.”
America’s public education system has been failing to teach students critical thinking skills from the very beginning. The result has been a widespread crippling of people’s ability to recognize advertising baloney (aka B.S.) and fake news when they encounter it. In marked contrast to the U.S., Finland’s educational system, for example, gets an early start on teaching elementary school children how to recognize misinformation.
Without thinking critically, people will continue to believe what others tell them, or hear what they want to believe, while disregarding any evidence to the contrary. Their typical response will be to double-down whenever their cherished beliefs are challenged. Fortunately, there is an excellent “Baloney Detection Kit” available to remedy this widespread problem. Dr. Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, has a very worthwhile video on the subject:
Default Skepticism
Healthy (ie. non-cynical) skepticism is considered the default mode for all scientific inquiry and critical thinking. However, that skill doesn’t come naturally to us, and therefore needs to be cultivated. As children, we were programmed to believe whatever our parents, caregivers, clergy, and teachers said. We took those things on blind faith, but as adults we need to reexamine our beliefs and drop any unnecessary baggage.
It's okay to question everything, even if the information seems to be coming from an esteemed authority or a reputable publication. It is also important to consider your own confirmation biases. They are part of our subconscious human need to select information that aligns with what we already believe to be true, in order to avoid discomforting cognitive dissonance.
Our brains do not have a built-in mechanism for recognizing what is true, and what is not. Correctly understanding something, and misunderstanding feel exactly the same. The only way to know if something is more likely to be true is to employ the methodology of rational skepticism. That involves recognizing our own cognitive biases and discovering our blind spots. As the Greek philosopher Socrates pointed out long ago, “To know thyself is the beginning of wisdom.”
Here’s how you can fact-check like those who do it for a living:
Figuring Out Who and What to Trust Online
Some websites and online posts are deliberately malicious, or are pursing hidden agendas. Credentialed scientists can be doing covert public relations work for their employer. Renegade medical doctors can be trying to promote their “alternative” treatments, such as ivermectin for COVID-19. Other health professionals may have been misled by hyped-up claims.
Fortunately, there are a number of simple heuristics that can help, such as suspicious funding relationships. Be wary of study conclusions based on poorly described mechanisms, minimal human testing, or lack reputable citations. If conclusions are boldly asserted rather than being nuanced and accompanied by qualifiers, don’t trust them. Disregard any that are presented with broad-based or inflammatory language, or claim special knowledge. If a study employs proprietary methods that prevent independent replication, consider it bogus.
Look for information coming from highly regarded organizations, long-established educational institutions, and government agencies that are recognized by outside experts as being generally trustworthy. The more that other credible sources link to or reference a source of information, the more this suggests that experts in that field consider that source to be reliable.
See if you can discern the motives of those who are posting information online. Does it seem like they are attention-seeking? Do they take a neutral position and are simply trying to inform, or are they attempting to persuade you, sell you something, or justify their behavior? Does the source present multiple perspectives on an issue, or does the information appear to be one-sided? Could the author be doing covert public relations work for a company? Might they have a political, religious, or financial agenda that distorts their information?
Does the author of online posts back up their conclusions or assertions with independently verifiable, factual data? Are they trying to claim a scientific or intellectual high ground? Do they provide citations to reputable sources? If so, don’t stop with just one reference. Try to find the same or similar articles in other journals. If an opinion comes without supporting evidence, consider it to be just that; some random opinion.
Is the information consistent with what you already know, or does something seem off, requiring further investigation? Be wary of sensationalism, with headlines that grab your attention, or claims that evoke strong emotions. The article is more likely to be clickbait, rather than being a sincere effort to truthfully inform people.
Having a way to contact the author suggests that they value transparency and accountability. Will they bother to read your comment or email? If you present them with credible evidence that contradicts their position, do they become defensive, or are they open-minded and willing to update their interpretation of the data? Scientific conclusions are never etched in stone.
Does the publication have a mission statement? What are its author’s values? You can find answers to those questions about my Newsletter here:
You can fact-check the claims being made by using websites such as Snopes, FactCheck, PolitiFact, and NewsGuard’s Reality Check, which is also included as an extension in Microsoft Edge. Those tools can help you determine if a viral claim has been debunked, or less likely, verified (since truth usually has less click-appeal). Google's Fact Check Tools can also help you locate fact-checking sources related to specific claims.
It is probably best to simply ignore information that comes from unknown or anonymous sources. People who don't reveal who they are should not be trusted. Social media is crawling with trolls who revel in harassing others, while promoting their unqualified opinions, or engaging in outright quackery. Please don’t waste your precious time by debating them. Simply delete their comment and block them from further interactions, in that order.
Misinformation isn’t going away, but it is possible to build stronger defenses against it. More durable interventions focus on memory-based strategies, which can help people more clearly identify and resist false information.
Consult multiple sources of information, and make an effort to obtain different perspectives on an issue or subject, in order to develop a more comprehensive picture. Even credible sources can make mistakes, and reputable scientific journal have had to occasionally make retractions. The key is being skeptical and thinking critically. Evaluate all online information carefully, regardless of its source, including what you’ve just read here. 🤔
― ― ―
This Post can be updated at any time. Please check back here again to find the most up-to-date information.
Find a lot more of my articles about Healthy Living in my Post Archive.
Please share my Website Link with others via your social media accounts. You can help your friends and followers become healthier by suggesting that they subscribe to my totally free Newsletter.