MEDICAL “MISINFORMATION”

I fear I may be “wading into shark-infested waters” when I approach the subject in the title of this article. Up until now I have avoided controversial subjects not wanting stir the ire of anyone who reads DrGOpines.com. But I think the COVID-19 pandemic of 2019-2020 had a devastating effect on medical information. Mistrust and suspicion of authorities were unbridled. So much about the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus was not known that suspicions and speculations flew around like flies on watermelon. Medical professionals and lay people alike formulated all sorts of warnings, guidelines, or policies that were true in some cases and complete fantasy in others. 

One example of confusion was the obvious denigration of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Unscientifically proven claims that HCQ could prevent COVID-19 or lessen its severity were met with derision by many medical experts, and the desire to take it by a frightened general public. A 50-year old drug taken by millions for malaria prophylaxis, and by many others for auto-immune disorders, was, at the time, the only drug that was thought to keep people from getting sick and dying from COVID. At least, that was the claim. Thus began what seemed like a campaign against hydroxychloroquine. 

Hydroxychloroquine became persona non grata. Suddenly, side effects doctors never paid much attention to became major concerns for people who wanted to take HCQ. The public, terrified of the lethality of COVID-19 was eager to take it even if was an “off-label” use not approved by the FDA. The situation with COVID seemed dire enough that some physicians wanted to prescribe it. 

“Mainstream” medical experts, however, began a concerted effort to discourage even the thought of taking HCQ. They felt that hydroxychloroquine posed enough of a danger that the risk of taking it was greater than the risk of COVID-19. The public didn’t buy that argument, though, and became suspicious of public health officials. I agreed there appeared to be a bias against a drug I, and millions of others, had taken without concern for many years. 

It seemed there was an effort to scare people out of taking HCQ, and it worked. HCG became difficult to get at pharmacies. I had been on it for 10 years so I was able to refill my prescription, but not without being questioned why I was taking it. Side effects never mentioned before became a reason its use was being restricted and obtaining it became difficult.

All this negative information confused me. Why, all of a sudden, was this so important? Why did it seem public health officials were trying to keep people from taking it? It seemed like someone, somewhere did not want people to take hydroxychloroquine. Thus the public became dubious.

That situation, and a lot of others, such as the mRNA vaccines, fed the growing mistrust of  medical experts and their information about COVID-19. Who could you believe? Whose opinion/recommendation was correct? The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC, which heretofore had been the gold standard for every aspect of communicable disease, suddenly was treated with uncertainty and skepticism. 

That was then (during COVID). Now, five years later, an essay/editorial in Medscape, relates how officials in the U.S. government have written to the editors of three professional medical journals requesting information on how they handle “misinformation and competing viewpoints,” among other things. The essay’s author was very disturbed by the implication that the journals were being accused of bias in favor of the viewpoints of “your funders, your advertisers, your supporters, and others.” Government officials were questioning the mood, tone, and slant of the information they provided healthcare officials. He said the government has “a fundamental misunderstanding of what journals are about…..journals are aimed at medical people, at researchers, and at people who work in healthcare….they’re not the modality for educating the public….points of view might be controversial, but rarely is it a forum for politics…it’s never a forum for public education.”

Journals are very selective in the manuscripts they choose for publication. Their editorial boards make the final decisions with the goal of informing physicians. They “don’t necessarily have to accept manuscripts that are oriented toward the ideology and politics of the contributor….if its a opinion piece,” it must meet “the standards….that makes it….successful.” And opinion pieces are clearly labeled with the “Opinion” or “Editorial” designation. So bias is supposed to be averted and the information presented is evidence-based. 

The author felt the government was on a “fishing expedition,” and he wanted be certain “that these journals….make clear the apolitical nature of what they do and are striving to be evidence based.” Journal content is strictly scientific, evidence-based information devoid of any political message or political debate. Opinions, et al. are found in the editorial section of the journal and are clearly identified as such. That’s how it has always been. 

Dr. G’s Opinion: Medical journals, and medical information in general, have always been apolitical—at least I never sensed a political bias or agenda. That is, until the COVID-19 pandemic. During that everything changed. Disagreements were common. Impartiality disappeared. Everyone had an opinion, and their’s was the right one. Who was telling the truth? Who was not? Everyone was suspicious of everyone else. I noted in articles in American Family Physician, the journal for family physicians, that race often was prominently mentioned and inequality of available resources was heavily emphasized. Patient presentations which heretofore included if the patient were white, black, or Hispanic, were called racist and that designation was omitted. They decided to ignore the fact that some races have more of a certain disease than other races, and that it may be helpful in making a diagnosis. 

Well, none of this is going to get better, but it must so trust in medical information can be re-established. To me, this essay adequately defends medical journals and emphasizes their purpose and impartiality.  

Reference: Caplan AL. Fed Action Toward Medical Journals is “Dangerous,” Ethicist says. Medscape 2025 August 26.