Creating a Science Blog for Outreach

Why evidence matters more than headlines: and the danger of snake oil! In the world of neurodevelopmental conditions and traits such as autism and ADHD, one thing is constant: families are searching for answers. That very human drive for explanation and certainty can, unfortunately, make us vulnerable to misinformation, fear-mongering, and snake oil solutions. Two recent and well-known examples illustrate this risk. 🔹 the MMR vaccine and autism In 1998, a small case series suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Despite only involving 12 children, the story made global headlines. We now know that this research was not only flawed but fraudulent, and it has since been fully retracted. Yet the damage was real: vaccination rates dropped, measles outbreaks occurred, and public trust was eroded. 🔹 Paracetamol use in pregnancy More recently, headlines have suggested that paracetamol (acetaminophen) during pregnancy may increase the risk of autism or ADHD. However, the largest study to date – covering more than 2.4 million children in Sweden – found no increased risk when careful sibling comparisons were made. Earlier “signals” were most likely due to family and environmental factors, not the medication. These cases highlight a bigger problem: Headlines are short, bold, and dramatic; science is careful, slow, and nuanced. false claims spread faster than careful corrections. Once fear takes hold, it can drive people toward unproven interventions, costly treatments, or avoidance of safe healthcare. This is where “snake oil” creeps in. When people are scared, there will always be those ready to exploit that fear with promises of miracle cures, restrictive diets, or expensive “brain training” that lacks evidence. So, what should we do? ✔️ Check the evidence base, not just one study – ask whether findings are replicated, large-scale, and peer-reviewed. ✔️ Be wary of anecdotes over data – individual stories can be powerful but are not proof. ✔️ Look at who benefits – is the claim linked to financial or political gain? ✔️ Communicate carefully – those of us in healthcare, education, or research Have a duty to share science accessibly, honestly, and without sensationalism. For families and professionals alike, the message is clear: don’t let fear be louder than facts. Evidence is our best safeguard against misinformation and exploitation, and it is what truly helps us support autistic and ADHD individuals to thrive.

The loudest voices in the room are often the least informed. Those with superficial knowledge speak with absolute certainty, while true experts hesitate before giving media interviews - or discard dozens of post drafts and never publish at all. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. When people know very little about a topic, they lack the framework to recognize their own ignorance. Their confidence skyrockets precisely because they don’t understand the complexity they’re missing. Meanwhile, experts become quieter. Because the more you know, the more you realize how much you don’t know. What does this mean for science communication? → Researcher should share their evidence-based knowledge. The public needs expert voices not the loudest ones. → More budget for communication support. Scientists shouldn’t have to choose between doing research and communicating it well. → Publish research more transparently by not only sharing conclusions but showcasing processes, methods and challenges. → Normalize uncertainty. Saying “we don’t know yet” or “the evidence suggests” isn’t weakness - it’s intellectual honesty. The cost of silence from experts is too high. When qualified voices withdraw from public discourse, misinformation fills the void. What’s your experience? How do you encourage experts in your field to engage publicly?

Fighting misinformation doesn’t always mean confronting it head-on. Sometimes, it means stepping around it entirely. That’s "Bypassing". We’ve long believed the best way to deal with misinformation is to “correct” it with facts. But new research from Penn suggests a different approach: bypassing — providing accurate information without ever repeating the false claim. Why? Because repeating a myth, even to debunk it, can make it more memorable. Familiarity breeds belief. Instead, bypassing focuses on planting a clear, strong truth from the start. You don’t mention the myth at all — you just tell people what is true. ✅ “Vaccines support healthy pregnancies and are thoroughly tested for safety.” Rather than ❌ “Vaccines don’t cause infertility.” The Penn study showed that bypassing was just as effective as direct correction — and sometimes even better, especially when beliefs weren’t yet deeply held. It also avoids triggering defensive reactions or entrenching misinformation further. Bypassing isn’t the only tool we have, but it’s a powerful one — especially for emotionally charged topics or when trying to reach skeptical audiences. Sometimes, the best way to fight a lie isn’t to wrestle with it. It’s to tell a stronger, stickier truth instead.

Since 1997, social media platforms have evolved from SixDegrees to TikTok. Science communication has not kept pace. In a reflective essay, Anna Wadhwa argues that social media is now a central arena where scientific issues are debated, misunderstood and often distorted, yet remains underused by scientists themselves. Topics such as vaccines, public health and medical treatments circulate widely online, frequently explained by unverified voices rather than by researchers who generate the evidence. Facts alone are insufficient. Effective science communication must also show how science works, including uncertainty, methods, trade-offs and limitations. Teaching people what the data say without explaining how conclusions are reached leaves space for misinformation to flourish. Wadhwa proposes a practical shift in approach. Instead of only presenting results, scientists should use social media to explain reasoning, disclose uncertainty and model healthy scepticism. This includes encouraging audiences to ask why certain methods are used, how evidence is weighed and how conflicts of interest are handled. Another dimension matters just as much. Visibility of scientists as people. The essay argues that transparency about motivations, constraints and everyday research practice can humanise science and counter caricatures that fuel distrust.

It’s incredible what you can learn on LinkedIn by following the right people. In 2017, I became obsessed with the topic of #microplastics in #water. It was a subject I was passionate about and spoke about on many occasions, even in media outlets. However, today I want to clarify that part of what I presented was not entirely accurate. The worst part? I failed at something as basic as a mass balance. For instance, we ingest 0.0000014 g of microplastics per week, and there are 3,600 weeks in 70 years. This means our total lifetime exposure to microplastics by ingestion is just 0.005 g. The vast majority (99.7%) of small particles ingested pass right through us. Thus, we can calculate the total amount not expelled over 70 years as 0.000015 g. Even that tiny fraction is attacked and destroyed by the body's defenses. This insight was a turning point for me. It helped me realize that as a society, we are obsessing over the wrong issues. I owe a debt of gratitude to scientist Chris DeArmitt - PhD, FRSC, FIMMM, who helped me understand this through his book, The Plastics Paradox. It made me question my preconceived ideas and recognize that the problem is not plastic as a material. In fact, plastic is one of the most sustainable materials we have. The real issue lies in how we misuse it—creating something designed to last forever and then treating it as disposable, and failing to take responsibility for the waste we generate. So today, I want not only to apologize for spreading misinformation but also to thank those who dedicate their work to providing accurate data and realistic perspectives. It's time to shift our focus: the problem isn’t the material—it’s us, the way we use and discard it. For those in the water industry, there’s a valuable parallel here. Just as we must ensure accurate and science-based communication about desalination to dispel myths, we can learn from the #plastics community and experts like Chris Dearmitt. They actively collaborate to promote scientific truth, standing together to counter misinformation whenever it arises. This proactive approach not only supports informed decision-making but also builds trust and fosters a collective commitment to addressing real challenges with data-driven solutions. Let’s strive to emulate this in our own industry. (Source: Nur Hazimah Nor, Lifetime Accumulation of Microplastic in Children and Adults, Environmental & Technology, 55 (8), pp. 5084-5096, 2021). https://bit.ly/4eXlyqs

“My cousin’s friend cured their cancer with baking soda.” If you've ever heard a patient or loved one repeat something like this, you know the frustration—and the danger. I’ve sat across the dinner table from young family members who KNOW the moon landing was fake and that the COVID vaccine killed more people than it saved. These aren't abstract anecdotes. These are people I love—fully convinced by content designed to exploit their fears and confirmation bias. Misinformation isn’t just wrong. It’s a barrier to care. And it’s personal. October is Health Literacy Month, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. During COVID-19, 80% of Americans encountered health misinformation. Only 12% have proficient health literacy (Kaiser/NIH). That’s not a gap—it’s a public health crisis. Why This Matters Now Misinformation spreads because it’s engineered to exploit human psychology: Fear and outrage go viral faster than facts (BMJ) Algorithms reward engagement—not accuracy Confirmation bias makes repetition feel like truth And once false beliefs take root, shame won’t uproot them. You can’t fact-check your way out of this alone. What We Can Do: Build “Misinformation Immunity” Here are four ways to make your health content more resilient: 1. Teach Red Flags in Plain Language “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” “No sources? No author? That’s a red flag.” “Would you bet your family’s health on it?” 2. Embed Trusted Resources at Every Touchpoint Link to: Mayo Clinic Cleveland Clinic PubMed Health Health Feedback (scientist-reviewed) Make verification easier than belief. And always encourage patients to talk to their doctor before acting on health advice they see online. 3. Correct With Empathy Instead of: “That’s ridiculous.” Try: “I’ve heard that too—let’s check what the research says.” “That’s a scary claim. Let’s verify it together.” Attack ideas, not people. Otherwise, they double down. 4. Advocate for System-Level Change Push for: Jargon-free patient materials Community-led myth-busting Accountability for health misinformation on social media Health literacy isn’t just a patient responsibility—it’s a system priority. This Health Literacy Month: One Action Here’s my challenge to anyone working in health communication: Add one “misinformation red flag” tip to your next patient-facing resource. Model what critical thinking looks like. Tag a colleague doing exceptional work in this space. Let’s amplify those building defenses—not just fighting fires. Question for you: What’s the most persistent health myth you’ve encountered—and what actually helped address it? Let’s learn from each other. ♻️ If this resonates, share it with your network. 👉 And follow me for more ideas like this. #HealthLiteracyMonth #HealthEquity #PatientEducation #Misinformation #HealthCommunication #CriticalThinking #BehavioralScience #NarrativeDesign #HealthActionStorytelling

A disturbing example of scientific misinformation landed in front of me this week because it cited one of our own publications on Blastocystis. At first glance, the article appears scientific. It contains confident clinical statements, twelve references and detailed explanations of the gut microbiome. However, checking the references revealed more than ten serious problems. Our own paper was cited with the wrong authors and the wrong DOI. More importantly, its conclusions were misrepresented. Our work emphasises that the pathogenicity and biological significance of Blastocystis remain unresolved and that substantially more research is needed. It does not conclude that Blastocystis is simply a harmless commensal in most individuals, nor does it validate a particular commercial stool test or demonstrate that such testing can determine whether Blastocystis is driving a patient’s symptoms. Other problems include: • papers attributed to the wrong researchers • an apparently invented or substantially altered article title • citations that do not support the clinical claims attached to them • results from parasite-free mice presented as a basis for predictions about herbal treatments in humans • evidence about antibiotics in children extrapolated to herbal parasite cleanses • sweeping claims about SIBO, low stomach acid and parasite prevalence without appropriate evidence • commercial testing recommendations presented with a level of certainty that the cited research does not justify This is not a minor referencing error. It creates a façade of scientific authority around statements that have not been established by the cited evidence. AI can be an extremely useful research and communication tool. But when it is used without subject expertise, source verification or intellectual accountability, it can produce convincing scientific misinformation at extraordinary speed. A long reference list does not make an article evidence-based. Every citation must exist, be accurately reported and genuinely support the claim being made. Scientists have a responsibility to communicate uncertainty honestly. Health practitioners and content creators have the same responsibility, particularly when their claims may influence testing, treatment and decisions involving children. Please check the original papers. Do not trust scientific-looking text simply because it is fluent, confident and accompanied by references. #ScientificIntegrity #Misinformation #ArtificialIntelligence #ResearchEthics #Blastocystis #GutMicrobiome #OneHealth #EvidenceBasedPractice #ScienceCommunication https://lnkd.in/exitjwDp

The volume of BS and AI slop and fake experts is out of control. Common sense isn't so common so here are some steps you can take to make sure that post you just read isn't garbage. You're welcome... 1. Check the Author’s Background – Click their profile. Are they qualified to speak on this topic, or are they repeating viral info? 2. Look for Specifics, Not Vibes Real insights reference projects, tools, dates, or data. Vague advice and buzzwords are red flags. 3. Verify Sources – If someone cites a stat, trend, or news, Google it or look for the original report or article. 4. Cross-Check Claims – See if reputable sources or industry experts have said something similar. 5. Watch for Engagement Bait – Posts that provoke emotion (“hot takes,” “never do this” "anything being DEAD" ) often sacrifice accuracy for clicks. 6. Check the Comments – Experts often correct misinformation or add nuance below the post. 7. Look for Consistency – Does this person’s past content align with what they’re saying now, or are they chasing trends? 8. Evaluate Tone – Serious professionals don’t insult others or make exaggerated promises (“AI will replace 90% of jobs next year”). 9. Test the Advice – If it’s a “how-to,” see if it actually works or if others have verified results. 10. Use Reverse Image/AI Tools – For images, infographics, or screenshots, verify whether they’re AI-generated or taken out of context. Please choose who you follow wisely. The most follow-able are often the best at marketing and the worst at valuable information. Stay safe, be wise.