Experts offer advice in an era shaped by artificial intelligence, social media, misinformation

Brian Druker, M.D., has pretty much done it all as a pioneer in precision medicine. He developed a drug that turned chronic myeloid leukemia from a death sentence into a manageable condition; his discovery spurred the development of numerous similar life-saving precision therapies; and he is the animating force behind the Knight Cancer Institute’s initiative at Oregon Health & Science University to end cancer as we know it.

So he was more than a little surprised when colleagues asked him why he was peddling ivermectin on social media.

“I spent an entire career based on honesty and integrity,” he said. “For someone to be able to usurp my identity—and undermine the trust people have in me—is really disturbing.”

His professional identity had been co-opted by a fake account on Facebook under the name “Brain Druker” pitching ivermectin to treat various forms of cancer. Weeks before, a similar fake account popped up on X.

The situation involving one of OHSU’s highest-profile scientist-physicians represents a concerning development in an evolving information landscape now shaped by social media and misinformation. Navigating this environment is as challenging for health care professionals as it is for patients who are seeking answers and sometimes desperate for a ray of hope.

“We live in a post-truth era,” said Fabrice Jotterand, Ph.D., director of the OHSU Center for Ethics in Health Care. “Everything is up for grabs. Your truth is not my truth.”

Yet medicine has always evolved with new technologies, each time meeting the moment. In this new era, three OHSU experts who represent distinct fields of knowledge offer their advice about how to distinguish fact from fiction: a philosopher, a librarian and a physician who specializes in health literacy.

A physician’s perspective

Cliff Coleman, M.D., M.P.H., is a primary care physician who sees patients at OHSU’s Richmond Clinic in southeast Portland.

He’s also a professor of family medicine in the OHSU School of Medicine who is a national expert in the fields of health literacy and doctor-patient communication. As an expert who trains other health care professionals and medical students, Coleman understands the allure for people seeking help from readily available online resources.

“Getting that positive message from an AI chatbot may satisfy your needs, whether it’s the capital-T ‘Truth’ or not,” he said. “It may meet your needs to get something that feels like the truth, as opposed to a real physician where you confront the messiness and stresses of a real conversation.”

The ease, convenience and reinforcement of preexisting values and beliefs make us especially susceptible to algorithms feeding us what we want to hear, he says.

A recent poll from the health policy nonprofit KFF found that about one-third of adults are now turning to artificial intelligence for health information and advice, nearly the same rate as people who say they turn to social media to inform their medical choices.

In this environment, Coleman said it’s critical for physicians to build trust by forging a human connection with patients. Once trust is established, patients may be more open to verifying health information through reliable resources such as websites maintained by OHSU or public health districts, a medical librarian or professional medical associations.

Building a shared understanding is a better approach than leaving patients to do their own research, he said.

“I worry about how AI presents itself as the truth and how that plugs into people’s willingness to believe it,” Coleman said. “The thing that concerns me is the answer you get is delivered with such confidence that it sounds like the truth, when clearly you can’t count on that.”

A librarian’s perspective

Kristin Whitman, M.L.S., head of learning and information services for the OHSU Library, suggests stopping to ask yourself two questions: Why should I trust this information, and what happens if it’s wrong?

“The stakes matter,” she said. “If you’re looking for the best Italian restaurant in your neighborhood, it’s fine. If you are looking to treat a medical condition, that is the time to stop and recognize you’re feeling an emotion of hope—and to create space for investigation.”

Rather than accepting the information at face value, she recommends a form of investigation known as “lateral reading.”

The concept involves looking for supplementary information that may validate or undermine a claim made by a social media influencer or organization. It’s worth considering whether the source of the claim comes from peer-reviewed research published in a scientific journal; an organization angling to sell a product or service; or an independent, professional journalist.

At the same time, Whitman empathizes with patients seeking hopeful answers to hard questions.

“We’ve all felt that,” she said. “We may have a medical condition where we would like to have a miracle cure. If my doctor isn’t giving me the answer I want, I may ask ChatGPT and get great news based on the way I phrased the question. That’s hope—and I’m going to go as far down that rabbit hole as I can.”

As a result, patients may encounter misleading claims not supported by current medical evidence. Armed with these claims, they turn to health care professionals asking for specific treatments.

A philosopher’s perspective

Jotterand, a philosopher and medical ethicist, understands that people can be resistant to difficult conversations. Even so, he advises physicians and scientists to come into those conversations with a sense of humility.

“The tendency is to say that science is the only answer to any question,” he said. “But oftentimes people don’t trust experts anymore.”

In a polarized era, Jotterand said it’s crucial for health care professionals and scientists to practice the art of civil discourse among people with different ideas.

“The way out is to put forward these questions and think together and work toward the common good,” he said. “Not in the sense that ‘I’m a scientist and I have all the answers.’ We need to understand it’s not by simply avoiding debate that we’re going to make progress—it’s the opposite.”

“When we’re willing to engage people who disagree with us, we’re going to make progress.”

The path forward

For Druker, the way out is through.

Even with his administrative duties as president of the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, he still sees patients once a week. Patient care helps to keep him grounded, even on the occasions when patients may ask him about vaccines or about using the antiparasitic drug ivermectin to treat or prevent cancer.

He finds the key is to engage with patients in a nonjudgmental way.

“It comes down to having a conversation: ‘Where did you see this information?'” he said. “Ultimately, my job isn’t necessarily to dissuade people in their beliefs. My job is to give them the care that they need to get them the best outcomes.”

Remember to SIFT

Whitman, the head of learning and information services for the OHSU Library, advises a popular four-step framework to help people evaluate the credibility of information found online: the acronym SIFT.

• Stop: What am I feeling right now? What do I already know about this topic and the source?
• Investigate the source: What kind of source is this? Who is the author, and what is their intention? How recent is this post?
• Find trusted coverage: Can we confirm this information through other sources, such as a university news release or a trusted outlet staffed by independent, professional journalists?
• Trace the claim: Can we find the original source of any claims, quotes or data? And is that really what it means in its original context?

In addition, support is available to people who want to dig deeper.

“Librarians are trained in online skills and identifying misinformation,” Whitman says. “You can always reach out to your local librarians for help.”

Who’s behind this story?

Sadie Harley

BSc Life Sciences & Ecology. Microbiology lab background with pharmaceutical news experience in oil, gas, and renewable industries.

Full profile →

Andrew Zinin

Master’s in physics with research experience. Long-time science news enthusiast. Plays key role in Science X’s editorial success.

Full profile →