Sifting Through the Noise: Medical Misinformation and Finding Reliable Sources

By Spoorthi Vallamkonda, BS

With the rise of technology, artificial intelligence, and social media, health misinformation has become a widespread epidemic. Misleading or false information is disseminating more rapidly than accurate information, leading to growing public distrust in medical professionals and health institutions. Medical misinformation disproportionately impacts certain population groups due to factors such as low health literacy, preferences for alternative medicine, and idealizing anecdotal evidence over scientific research.

Additionally, internet algorithms and echo chambers further perpetuate this gap between accuracy and prevalence. These algorithms create an environment where social media users are repeatedly exposed to content that aligns with their interactions or beliefs, fostering confirmation bias. Given that our health is highly individual and influenced by our daily habits and genetics, it is crucial to make informed decisions by selecting reliable resources and placing trust in our medical professionals.

Key Statistics:

^{The top five countries with the highest rates of health misinformation are India, the United States, Brazil, Spain, and Colombia.¹}
72% of adults in the United States find their health information from social media.^2,3
The three social media platforms most responsible for spreading health misinformation, both generally and during the COVID-19 pandemic, are Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter.¹
93% of Twitter users posting polarizing views on vaccination could not be identified as humans or bots.⁴

Maternal and Reproductive Health

Maternal and reproductive health is significantly impacted by the spread of misinformation. For instance, over 50% of individuals with endometriosis believe that this diagnosis would make it impossible to obtain pregnancy after encountering information online.⁵ Furthermore, reproductive policy remains a contentious issue, often perpetuating medically inaccurate propaganda. A notable example is Ohio House Bill 413, introduced in 2019, which recommended that physicians should reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into a woman’s uterus.⁶ Ectopic pregnancies occur when a fertilized ovum develops outside the uterus, posing risks of rupture and life-threatening internal bleeding for the mother. The notion of reimplanting this ovum is medically implausible.⁶ Such policies disseminate false information, contributing to increased distrust between healthcare providers and patients.

Artificial intelligence sources, specifically ChatGPT, have been shown to provide medically inaccurate information regarding self-managed medical abortions (SMMA). SMMAs are an abortion process where individuals are prescribed FDA-approved medications by a clinician that essentially induces the embryo to detach from the uterine lining. ChatGPT has contradicted medical accuracy and information supported by the World Health Organization (WHO), which states that SMMAs commonly lead to complications such as infection, heavy bleeding, or an incomplete abortion.^7–10 However, adverse effects from SMMAs occur in less than 1% of all cases.^7–10 Proper health education is essential for ensuring that individuals can take care of their bodies and their loved ones.

Contraceptive education is another area where misinformation proliferates. A study conducted a quantitative analysis of websites providing information about oral contraceptive use, primarily selecting sources from Google search results. Alarmingly, only 53.1% of these websites provided medically accurate information regarding daily use of contraceptives.¹¹ A significant percentage of these websites propagated false information related to fertility, missed pill management, and weight gain.¹¹ Additionally, another study investigating online information about intrauterine devices (IUDs) revealed that only 30% of websites explicitly stated that IUDs are safe.¹² 50% of sites contained inaccurate information regarding the eligibility for IUDs, incorrectly suggesting that nulliparous individuals (women who have never given birth) and those in non-monogamous relationships are ineligible.¹² Furthermore, 27% of these sites claimed that keeping an IUD beyond the month of insertion can cause a risk of developing pelvic inflammatory disease.¹² The circulation of inconsistent and incorrect information continues to impact reproductive health, hindering a woman’s ability to make informed decisions about their body.

Pandemics and Epidemics

The detrimental health outcomes resulting from misinformation are particularly emphasized during pandemics and epidemics. Historically, biases from governments, corporations, and people have influenced health behaviors, leading to adverse consequences not only for individual health but also fostering fear and distrust within communities.¹³ During the early outbreak of the HIV epidemic, widespread rumors in South Africa suggested that antiretroviral treatments were toxic and ineffective.¹⁴ This misinformation led many individuals to refuse these therapies, contributing to a rise in vertical transmission of the virus and resulting in the tragic loss of over 300,000 lives.¹⁴ Additionally, the South African government’s focus on traditional and alternative medicine further exacerbated this crisis.

Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic has been marked by a surge of negative health outcomes fueled by the proliferation of social media conspiracies, religious beliefs, and political polarization. The outbreak triggered panic-buying behaviors, with individuals hoarding items such as toilet paper, sanitizers, and rubbing alcohol. The WHO, medical professionals, and various public health initiatives have had to intensify efforts to debunk a multitude of myths that emerged during this time. One dangerous global myth was the belief that consuming high concentrations of alcohol could kill the virus internally.¹⁵ This misconception had dire consequences in Iran, where it resulted in 800 deaths, 5,876 people hospitalized, and 60 individuals suffering complete blindness from methanol overconsumption.¹⁵

Anecdotal Evidence vs. Scientific Evidence

Social media and blog posts provide a platform for individuals to share their experiences with medical diagnoses and health journeys. Unfortunately, these sites often breed misinformation, as anecdotal evidence is frequently presented as scientific fact, and unique individual experiences are mistakenly viewed as universally applicable without medical validation. Anecdotal evidence is defined as a non-systematic, personal observation. While it is very important for individuals to share their success stories and personal experiences with medicine, it is equally important for the public to objectively differentiate between personal narratives and empirical medical data. The rapid speed at which information travels on social media and the internet complicates efforts to manage and eliminate misinformation. The number of likes and retweets a post receives can blur the lines between clickbait and factual content. In a study analyzing 480 website pages, 30% of the information supporting antivaccination statements was based on anecdotal evidence.¹⁶ A meta-analysis of 19 scientific experiments comparing the influence of anecdotal evidence to statistical data on human behavior revealed that 13 studies found anecdotal evidence to be more persuasive, 2 favored statistics, and 4 found both to be equally influential.¹⁷

Storytelling has long been a way for people to understand the world around them, and while this tool fosters connection, it can also cloud judgment when it comes to health, often exacerbating fears and anxieties. The case of Parker Beck illustrates how personal experiences may not translate to broader populations. Diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at the age of two, Parker experienced recurring diarrhea and vomiting, prompting an endoscopy to investigate the underlying causes.¹⁸ He received intravenous secretin, a peptide hormone used to evaluate pancreatic function. Following treatment, his parents observed a significant improvement in his autistic symptoms; he became more verbal and responsive. Parker’s story, featured on NBC’s Dateline, garnered considerable attention and prompted many families to seek secretin as a potential treatment for autism. In response, the research community conducted 14 randomized controlled trials, all of which found secretin to be ineffective for treatment of autism symptoms.¹⁸ Rather than concentrating on proven therapies to manage symptoms, parents were focusing on applying various personal anecdotes to their child’s situation, which did not yield the same outcome as Parker’s experience.^19,20 This example underscores how anecdotal stories can shape public perception and influence decisions, often leading to the spread of misinformation.

How to Identify Proper Sources

When searching for credible sources, the extensive lists generated by Google can often feel overwhelming. It is crucial not to rely on answers from Google’s AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, Perplexity AI, and any other artificial intelligence sources. Instead, prioritize websites funded by government entities, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, or professional medical and research societies. A helpful guideline is to look for websites ending in .gov, .org, or .edu first. Remain vigilant and avoid accepting the first piece of information you encounter; protecting your health requires being well-informed! Take the time to conduct thorough research.

When clicking on any website, follow these questions to ensure the information you are digesting is accurate and medically supported:

Who runs this site? Who wrote/reviewed this?

Click on the “About Us,” “Contact Us,” or “Members” page.
Make sure the organization has doctors, nurses, medical professionals, researchers, or scientists on their team.
Individuals with business, finance, technology, pharmaceutical or law backgrounds should not make up the entirety of the organization.

When was this information published?

Stay up to date with your health information. You don’t want to make decisions based on outdated information.

Why was the site created?

Check for “Mission Statements” or “Goals”
Understanding the intent of a website is important in assessing its accuracy and if it contains objective information.

Who is paying for the site?

Companies and pharmaceutical businesses often offer one specific solution. Good health information does not solely promote one treatment over others.
Sites that have lots of advertisements embedded between the text are not reliable!

Is it asking for health information?

No credible source should ask for personal identifying information. Never share social security numbers, bank information, or medical information.

Reliable Sources:

1. Health Information | National Institutes of Health (NIH)

2. Center of Disease Control

3. World Health Organization – Health Topics

4. Medical Diseases & Conditions – Mayo Clinic

5. Health Library – Cleveland Clinic

6. Health Check Tools: MedlinePlus

7. WebMD

8. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

9. Office on Women’s Health

10. Nemours KidsHealth

Scientific articles and journals can be dense and challenging to digest. When reading these studies, it is helpful to focus on the discussion and conclusion sections; these areas are summaries of the research findings.

1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

2. https://scholar.google.com/

3. https://www.jstor.org/

4. https://doaj.org/

5. https://www.science.gov/

References

1. Al-Zaman MdS. Prevalence and source analysis of COVID-19 misinformation in 138 countries. IFLA Journal. 2022;48(1):189-204. doi:10.1177/03400352211041135

2. Brady JT, Kelly ME, Stein SL. The Trump Effect: With No Peer Review, How Do We Know What to Really Believe on Social Media? Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2017;30(4):270-276. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1604256

3. Fox S. The social life of health information. Pew Research Center. January 15, 2014. Accessed November 8, 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/01/15/the-social-life-of-health-information/

4. Broniatowski DA, Jamison AM, Qi S, et al. Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(10):1378-1384. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567

5. Arena A, Degli Esposti E, Orsini B, et al. The social media effect: the impact of fake news on women affected by endometriosis. A prospective observational study. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2022;274:101-105. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.05.020

6. New Ohio Bill Falsely Suggests That Reimplantation of Ectopic Pregnancy Is Possible. Accessed November 8, 2025. https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/new-ohio-bill-falsely-suggests-that-reimplantation-of-ectopic-pregnancy-is-possible

7. Upadhyay UD, Desai S, Zlidar V, et al. Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):175-183. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000603

8. Medical Management of Abortion. World Health Organization; 2018. Accessed November 8, 2025. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK536779/

9. Health Worker Roles in Providing Safe Abortion Care and Post-Abortion Contraception. World Health Organization; 2015. Accessed November 8, 2025. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK316326/

10. McMahon HV, McMahon BD. Automating untruths: ChatGPT, self-managed medication abortion, and the threat of misinformation in a post-Roe world. Front Digit Health. 2024;6. doi:10.3389/fdgth.2024.1287186

11. The Quality of Information on Combined Oral Contraceptives Available on the Internet – ClinicalKey. Accessed November 8, 2025. https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/playContent/1-s2.0-S1701216319300829?scrollTo=%23hl0000992

12. Madden T, Cortez S, Kuzemchak M, Kaphingst KA, Politi MC. Accuracy of information about the intrauterine device on the Internet. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(4):499.e1-499.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.928

13. Southwell BG, Brennen JSB, Paquin R, Boudewyns V, Zeng J. Defining and Measuring Scientific Misinformation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2022;700(1):98-111. doi:10.1177/00027162221084709

14. Bateman C. Paying the price for aids denialism. SAMJ South African Medical Journal. 2007;97(10):912-914.

15. Alcohol does not protect against COVID-19; access should be restricted during lockdown. Accessed November 8, 2025. https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/14-04-2020-alcohol-does-not-protect-against-covid-19-access-should-be-restricted-during-lockdown

16. Moran MB, Lucas M, Everhart K, Morgan A, Prickett E. What makes anti-vaccine websites persuasive? A content analysis of techniques used by anti-vaccine websites to engender anti-vaccine sentiment. Journal of Communication in Healthcare. 2016;9(3):151-163. doi:10.1080/17538068.2016.1235531

17. Nissel J, Woolley JD. Anecdata: children’s and adults’ evaluation of anecdotal and statistical evidence. Front Dev Psychol. 2024;2. doi:10.3389/fdpys.2024.1324704

18. Kosko J, Klassen TP, Bishop T, Hartling L. Evidence-based medicine and the anecdote: Uneasy bedfellows or ideal couple? Paediatr Child Health. 2006;11(10):665-668. doi:10.1093/pch/11.10.665

19. Secretin. Accessed November 8, 2025. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/secretin

20. Ashby J. The Effects of Medical Misinformation on the American Public. Ballard Brief. 2024;2024(1). https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ballardbrief/vol2024/iss1/7

About the Author

Spoorthi Vallamkonda, BS

Spoorthi Vallamkonda, BS,studied Global Health at USC. She currently works at Stanford Medicine as a Clinical Research Coordinator in the Radiation Oncology department, supporting genitourinary malignancies. Spoorthi has clinical and behavioral research experience in geriatric cancer care and nicotine dependence. She is very passionate about maternal health, health education, and how violence/displacement impacts health. In her free time, she enjoys going on hikes, listening to true crime podcasts, and trying new recipes.

Explore These PSI Resources:

Information on Perinatal Mental Health
Screening Recommendations
Provider Directory
Subscribe to the PSI Blog