If you hear a health claim sounds too good to be true..

We all have things we believe without evidence. We particularly have things we believe without good evidence. I am not even talking about religious beliefs, which are, by definition, acts of faith, but what we can call lay beliefs about the world. One area in which this is both important and widely variable is health and medicine. There is a tremendous amount of information out there, and much of it is correct, and much is not, and sometimes some correct stuff seems, on the surface, to contradict other correct stuff. If that is true, what is a person to do?

One option is to learn about things in detail, understand the scientific method, understand statistics, and understand how “truth” evolves and changes with new discoveries. Or, alternatively, to know that there are people who do know and understand these things, who have spent years and decades learning about them, being trained in the subtleties of science and research, and listen to what they say. For decades, say roughly from WWII, this is how our public health developed. We didn’t just trust scientists, we trusted science. We could see the progression of scientific knowledge, and how it positively impacted ourselves, our communities, and our nation and world.

You don’t have to be a statistician and understand all the intricacies to understand, for example, the basics of probability. When something is more likely than something else, that doesn’t mean it will always happen. When you throw a pair of dice, it is more likely to come up 7 than any other single number (6 of the 36 possibilities – 1 in 6 -- are 7). This does not mean it will always be 7, or usually be 7, or even be 7 a majority of the time, but (given enough throws) it will be 7 more often than any other number. If you understand this, you are on your way to interpreting scientific data. If you don’t, don’t shoot craps.

In medicine, a diagnostic test or treatment that works only 1/6 times is not likely to be used, so the probability that it will give an accurate diagnosis or a successful treatment is going to be much higher. But almost never 100%. 99% is very good; 1% is a small chance, and if you had a 1% chance of getting 7 and crapping out, or getting a wrong answer on a test, you’d go for it. But if something is done a million times, 1% is 10,000. You, or a loved one, could be one of the 10,000 in whom a test is inaccurate, a treatment fails, or even a side effect kills you. That is terrible for you, but doesn’t increase the likelihood of it happening to the next person. If you throw dice, the odds of a certain combination are the same every single time. Even if someone, say, rolls 11 six times in a row it doesn’t change the probability (1/36) of getting an 11 the next time. There is no such thing as “hot dice” or a “hot shooter”. If you don’t understand that, don’t play craps.

Enough of probability now. The main point is that because something bad sometimes happens with a test or treatment doesn’t make it bad. Some of the issues in health that are most controversial now, like vaccines, are phenomenally and overwhelmingly good. Most of the bad things attributed to it are completely made up (not that the bad thing happened to someone, but that it was the result of the vaccine), and the others are very rare, far more rare than the bad things happening to the unvaccinated.

While truth does evolve and change with new discoveries, those changes are usually logical and stepwise. We know about something, and new information increases our knowledge. It rarely completely contradicts everything we know; it theoretically could and there have been some discoveries that did, but if a claim seems to it is very unlikely. It is usually internet spam, promulgated by people who think you are a sucker and may pay them for something that magically solves a problem. If you have a health problem, this is almost never the way to go. Sure, pharmaceutical companies are scum-sucking parasites who would kill their mothers, not to mention you, to make a buck, but that doesn’t mean the medications that they make are bad, ineffective, or more dangerous than what you can buy over the internet because somebody says it works. The FDA (at least historically, before it became decimated) required rigorous testing of medications before they are released to the public, while the miracle cures you see on the internet have not. In addition, the doses are standardized and consistent. You can know what you are getting, and if you cut the dose in half or double it, that is what you are doing. With unregulated drugs, you don’t know.

Yes, there are many natural substances that can help, and indeed many prescription and regulated drugs have their origin in them. But even though aspirin may have originated from willow bark, how much willow bark is the right dose for you? From what age tree? Growing in what conditions? In what season? What about next time? Or your next door neighbor? Or your kids? A good rule of thumb is the old saying: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. “Magical” cures on the internet never are. Another old saying, attributed to P.T. Barnum, is “a sucker is born every minute”. No one wants to be that sucker, but people are remarkably inconsistent about when they will be judicious and when they will swallow the Kool-Aid whole.

If someone you hate and think is stupid tells you something that sounds ridiculous and unbelievable, you probably won’t believe them. But what if it is a friend? If what they say is something that you already think might be true? Looking things up on the internet (sometimes called “doing your research”) is actually not a bad way to start. You usually find accurate information. This is really different from reading something sent to you or spammed out by bloggers (like me) or “influencers”; if someone is “reaching out” to you, it is basically marketing. Think of the difference between you calling your bank to find something out about your account and getting a call from someone that says that they are your bank!

How does this relate to social justice? Are there not believers and non-believers in data and science in both majority and minority groups, among the young and old, among the rich and the poor, among liberals and conservatives? Sure, but the impact is different among these different groups. Many people are not only acting on their own fringe and unscientific views, but pushing and promulgating them to others. And, as always and as in almost everything, it is the poorest, least empowered, least educated, most marginalized, those with the thinnest safety net, who suffer the most. We may occasionally read of someone who has been hoist on their own petard, refused vaccination and died of the disease, followed a wacko diet or taken unregulated medication who gets ill or dies from it, but when the society or government rejects science in favor of public health policies based on fringe beliefs, it is the least well off who are most often harmed.

Remember, there may be magic in the movies, but there is not real magic in the world. If something sounds to good to be true…

Risk, Primitive Reactions, and Human Health Behaviors

.
NPR’s “All Things Considered” recently reviewed several scary events from 2010 (“The year in fear: fright or fallacy?”). Reporter Jon Hamilton spoke with Dr. David Ropiek, Director of Risk Communication at the Harvard Center for Risk, about what made these events (Toyota’s acceleration problems, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the use of chemical dispersants, etc.) particularly frightening. Dr. Ropiek said that people tend to make decisions, and react positively or negatively, based on very simplistic (and usually unconscious) criteria, rather than on careful critical analysis of the relative benefits of one course of action over another, with the most important criterion being “is there immediate danger?” The reason he gave was that our basic neurobiology was unchanged over human history while our culture and society was remarkably more complex than when quick decisions were mostly about achieving immediate results (fight or flee). “We use a risk-perception system that evolved in simpler times, when the risks were bad guys with clubs, and the dark, and wolves. It's quick. But quick isn't necessarily the best for the complicated stuff we face in modern society.” Thus, for example, even though the evidence would show that the human and environmental danger of the oil spill was in the oil much more than any risk from chemical dispersants, “Just the word chemicals in your listeners' minds is currently setting off a little organ in their brain called the amygdala, which is the 24/7 radar in our brain that says - is there danger in that data?”; that is, our fears are triggered by the word (chemicals) which we have come to associate with danger.

Similarly, people can grasp the specific, and feel the pain, for an individual more easily than for a large, amorphous population. Thus, the outpouring of concern for “Baby Jessica” falling down a well in 1987, or for the child dying of leukemia, is much stronger than that for thousands of people, especially those in other countries, dying of war, disease, or even more abstract, structural violence. It is not just the one versus the many; it is the suddenness of it. We feel for the trapped Chilean miners, or the victims of a bombing; Ropiek says “… a chronic risk doesn’t ring our alarm bells the way a catastrophic, all-at-once one does. Because it concentrates the mind to see a bunch of the tribe all whacked at once.” So a particularly gory battle or atrocity is horrifying, but when there are chronic, repeated bombings and battles (as in Iraq or Afghanistan), even though they lead to much more death, we feel less.

We can see a murderer as a bad person, but it is harder to identify the members of the “grifter class” (coined by Matt Taibbi, “Griftopia”[1] ) who are responsible for the financial system that has visited so much evil on all of us. When people hear about something they know little or nothing about, especially if it is very complex and hard to understand, they often deal with it by putting a “frame” around it, tying it to something that seems similar enough (at least in one dimension) that they feel they can hang their hat on the analogy and judge it. For example, “chemicals=bad” in the example above is such a frame; so is dealing with universal health insurance by framing it as “socialized medicine”=”socialism”=”bad”. Unfortunately, the world is far more complex than this, and more unfortunately unscrupulous politicians and opinion-makers (my frame = “selfish evil people”) take advantage of this to obscure complexity and buy into often nonsensical self contradictions (taxes=bad, deficits=bad; let’s not have either!)

When it comes to health and medicine, the same issues come into play. People perceive immediate distress with acute problems (e.g., cough, fever, and most especially pain!) and know how much they would appreciate relief. The impact of conditions that do not cause appreciable symptoms right now but will cause really bad outcomes (death, morbidity, poor quality of life) if untreated in the future, are much harder to get people to make high priorities. The doctor sees untreated hypertension in terms of a future outcome (stroke, kidney failure), but this is more difficult for the patient. Even when s/he believes and understands it intellectually, it is much less likely that the treatment of a largely asymptomatic condition will rise to the top of life’s many more urgent priorities (food, clothing, housing, childcare, work) than if it were, say, pain.

The problem is even greater for public health, as I discussed in Public Health and Changing People's Minds (Saturday, May 15, 2010) where populations are huge, timelines are long and risk is relative. Public health addresses risks for populations, not me, or my family; translating population risk into individual prior probability is fairly difficult. For most people, even the concept of risk – that a given event will not definitely have or definitely not have a particular result, but will be somewhere on the continuum between them – is something they are not accustomed to thinking about, although they use it all the time (deciding whether to cross on a red light, for example). Consciously comparing the relative risk of different actions is very difficult, especially when the results have very different timelines. A definite immediate benefit (have that tasty fried or sweet food; throw a wrapper out the window, get a big gas-guzzler, have unprotected sex) has a lot more weight than the possibility of a bad long-term outcome (besides, next time, in the future, I’m going to go on a diet, give up smoking, use condoms). Dr. Ropiek notes that because events that cause “a bunch of the tribe to be all whacked at once” happens relatively rarely, “…we tend to downplay chronic risks like car accidents, diabetes, heart disease and the flu.” Sometimes public health officials can create that fear and mobilize the attention of the populace, as with concern about the swine flu of 1976, but that is also an example of how, when predicted risk of bad outcomes doesn’t happen, it reinforces the tendency to downplay those chronic risks.

In making decisions about medical care, this sort of perception can cut either way, depending on how a person looks at it based on personal and familial experience, cultural beliefs, and the way they “frame” medical interventions, as well as how urgent or important a solution is. Some people do not trust doctors or medicines, based on these criteria, and prefer to not take medicines or advice, even when an analysis of the relative risk shows the treatment to be definitely beneficial. Others have unrealistic expectations of what medicine can do (fueled, of course, by both doctors and direct-to-consumer drug advertising), and are angry when the doctor cannot cure their viral illness, make their back pain disappear, or compensate for all of the other parts of life that are bad and make them happy. At times of serious illness, where both treatment and non-treatment have real risks, or at end of life when people are not ready to accept that it is the end of life, even a professional evaluation of relative risk/benefit is difficult, so it is hardly surprising that people return to simpler methods of decision making (will I be able to live another day? Will it end my/his/her pain?).

Hamilton ends the interview segment with: “So Ropiek says we need to acquire a new fear - the fear of getting risk wrong.” I wish us luck on that.


[1] Taibbi, M. Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America. Random House. New York. 2010
.