Researchers from the University of Alberta and the BC Centre for Disease Control have delved into the alarming prevalence of misleading cancer-related information online, particularly on platforms like Amazon and Google. Their findings shed light on the tactics used by purveyors of ‘junk science’ to undermine public confidence in evidence-based medicine. This blog post explores the researchers’ insights and calls for innovative approaches to combat the rising tide of cancer misinformation. Cancer, Misinformation.
Navigating the Perilous Landscape of Online Cancer Information
When faced with a cancer diagnosis, many patients instinctively turn to the internet for more information, especially regarding alternative therapies. However, a troubling trend has emerged, as Timothy Caulfield, a law professor and Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, explains: “What you get when searching is just filled with misinformation and books that have demonstrably false claims.”
The research team, led by Cheryl Peters, a senior scientist in cancer prevention, set out to investigate how cancer misinformation spreads online and identify ways to ensure Canadians have access to reliable, evidence-based sources. Their findings, published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, reveal that nearly half of the book titles returned by the search term “cancer cure” on Amazon contained misleading information, with the first search page having the highest percentage at almost 70%.
The Alarming Rise of ‘Junk Science’ and Its Impact
The researchers found that misinformation took various forms, from claims that cancer can be cured with a novel strategy or treatment to oversimplifying the disease and discrediting conventional cancer treatments. Many books falsely claimed their treatments were based in science, and a high number were favorably reviewed, further contributing to the illusion of legitimacy.
According to Caulfield, the proliferation of this ‘junk science’ around cancer can have devastating consequences: “It can do incredible harm—even cause death.” The researchers also examined the Google listings and reviews for 47 prominent alternative cancer clinics, finding that they were similarly misleading, rarely identifying themselves as alternative, and skewing high in ratings, with an average of 4.5 stars out of 5.
Combating the ‘False Balance Machine’ of Online Misinformation
Caulfield and his team believe that the underlying drivers of cancer misinformation are complex and multifaceted. They point to the role of online algorithms that determine what rises to the top of a search list, as well as the tactics used by marketers of ‘junk therapies’ to sow doubt and uncertainty in the public’s confidence in science.
The researchers also highlight the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has accelerated the spread of misinformation by undermining science and sowing doubt. Caulfield calls the online information environment a “false balance machine” that misrepresents the scientific consensus on one hand and elevates unproven fringe perspectives on the other, giving each equal consideration.
To combat this, the researchers propose a multi-pronged approach, including the development of an “innovative digital strategy” to improve public health literacy about cancer prevention and provide ways to counter misinformation online. They also suggest the need for stronger truth-in-advertising regulations, especially with regard to search engines and social media platforms.
