Book Report - Viral BS: Medical Myths and Why We Fall for Them

 

General Overview: 

Viral BS: Medical Myths and Why We Fall for Them by Dr. Seema Yasmin is an interesting dive into the world of medical misinformation. Dr. Yasmin, who’s both a doctor and a journalist, takes us on a journey through some of the most common health myths out there. From the idea that cell phones cause cancer to the belief that vaccines can lead to autism, she breaks down why these myths persist and how they spread so easily. She illustrates how these myths gain traction, often fueled by social media, cognitive biases, and the emotional pull of sensational claims. The book offers a critical look at how misinformation can influence public health and personal well-being, providing readers with practical tools to recognize and challenge false health advice. The book is packed with real-life examples and scientific explanations, making it both informative and engaging.

What’s really cool about this book is how Dr. Yasmin explains the psychology behind why we fall for these myths. She talks about how our brains are wired to believe sensational stories and how social media amplifies misinformation. By the end of the book, you’ll have a better understanding of how to spot fake health news and why it’s so important to rely on credible sources. It’s a must-read for anyone who wants to navigate the sea of health information out there with a critical eye.  She even finished out the book with a personalized BS checklist to compare work in our daily lives, so we can decipher information and sources for ourselves.

rampant. 

Favorite Part:

My favorite part of this book was section 6 detailing or debunking rather the premise that we inherit trauma from previous generations, most immediately our parents. This example was one of many outlined by Dr Yasmin in substantiating the claim that people took a small portion of data from an “uninterpretable” study and ran with the results pawning it off as a breakthrough in epigenetics rather than what it was, a fascinating discovery that only really warrants further research.  This topic was especially interesting to me in the sense that the term generational trauma is used heavily in society today.  The reason someone uses the term is far less important than the fact that the term itself was born in a false extrapolation of a small sample size experiment with a limited scope.  It would be far more interesting if this study was continued with a larger sample size.  

Related: 

Speaking to how this book is related to class material, I think it lends itself to fast thinking the best.  One of the first lectures we went over in class warned us about the downsides of fast thinking and confirmation bias.  How confirmation bias can fit any data well if we retroactively hypothesize the results of the data.  As this isn't the scientific method, it's a slippery slope that allows for many people to get caught up in falsehood and echo chambers.  When hearing concurrent ideas and supporting rhetoric, it's hard to challenge ideas. Science only progresses when ideas are challenged and experimented on.  Without experiment and the presentation of all the data and not just the cherry picked data, science remains stagnant. 

Creative:

In the book, the author gives a checklist for evaluating future material, here's my spin on the same checklist:

The Smalling BS Checklist:

1 Who is making the claim? Are they themselves a reliable or credible source?  Are they the primary source of the information? Do they stand to gain from their perspective?

2 Are the Graphics true to form?  If images are used in the article or writing, have they been doctored, are they the original images, or do they show the entire picture/situation?

3 Follow the money!  Who stands to gain from this? The author? The organization funding the study? Who stands to gain from this narrative and who is framing the argument as it is framed and delivered?

4 Who benefits/ who is harmed?  Is the information targeted to one side or the other? Who stands to gain from this information or more specifically, who stands to benefit from the way this information is presented?

5 Common Sense!  Does this make sense?  Is the author or funding credible?  Does this pass the sniff test?

6 Keep an Open Mind! Don't get bogged down supporting one side or another, stay open to new information.

7 Occam’s Razor.  The simplest explanation with the least amount of assumptions is usually the right one.

8 Test the claim! Can the results be replicated?  Can the results be disproved?

9 Are ideas driven by science or are they driven by personal bias? 

10 Community Acceptance!  Is the study or data accepted across multiple fields or is it an outlier, untouched by other research topics

11 Transitive Property Gaps?  If this then that.  Are there gaps in knowledge or leaps of faith taken to conclude a certain point?

12 Question Authority! Do subject matter experts substantiate the claim?  Do governments or universities have a vested interest or grant at stake in a certain outcome?

Extension: 

 Especially in our recent history, Covid-19 embodied a population of people exposed to a plethora of data and a multitude of narratives.  People were so desperate for information many people fell prey to misinformation and other branches of fast thinking.  ITs important in science and in our own lives to have a high standard for information and to avoid doing what the NY Times writer did in my favorite section.  Which was cherry picking confirming data from a small study and expanding on it to make sweeping generalizations about trauma and coining the phrase “generational trauma”.  This isn't to say she's wrong or that the term does not have a place in science, simply that the supposition is presumptuous and unsubstantiated currently.