Every day, exaggerated headlines and convincing but false claims about health, science, and the world around us flood our feeds. It’s hard, even for experts, to know what to believe. Humans want simple answers and quick cures, which makes us uniquely vulnerable to “fake news,” especially in complex areas like health and medicine. Let’s look at why misinformation thrives and how to evaluate scientific research for hidden bias or flaws. I’ll also give you some practical tips for finding trustworthy information.

Key Takeaways

• People are vulnerable to “fake news” because of a natural desire for simple answers to complex health problems (like cancer or infertility). A digital economy fuels this by rewarding websites for publishing sensational, clickable headlines to generate ad revenue.
• To vet a study, focus on conflicts of interest. Check if researchers or funders have a stake in the outcome (e.g., supplement manufacturers). Also, scrutinize the study design, including the sample size, duration, whether the researchers accounted for confounders, and whether they used a placebo or blinded the study.
• While they combine many studies, meta-analyses can be flawed. Poor-quality original studies, a failure to account for critical details, or heavy media misinterpretation may skew their results.
• When reading study results, it is essential to distinguish between absolute risk and relative risk. Absolute risk is the actual, slight chance of something happening, while relative risk is the percentage by which that chance is increased.
• Vet information by checking website credentials (prioritize .gov, .edu, or reputable .org sites). Always read the ‘About Us’ section for mission and leadership. In addition, use independent fact-checkers (like Snopes or Factcheck.org) and avoid relying on comment sections.

Why We Fall for Fake News

Why are humans so susceptible to “fake news”? You may be surprised to learn that humans aren’t naturally skeptical. We want to believe in something, and don’t like uncertainty. But the truth is that there are no answers for things like disease prevention or even the appropriate treatment for many illnesses. If someone says that they have the “solution” to our problems, we want to believe them to put our minds at ease. That’s why fake health news is most pervasive around issues that conventional medicine hasn’t found a cure for yet.

This desire for simple answers is aggressively exploited by a system where the pursuit of ad revenue ensures that clickable headlines remain profitable. This is clear in recent data on how people consume health information on social media:

• A 2025 KFF Health Information and Trust Tracking Poll found that more than half of adults say they use social media for health information at least occasionally. However, less than half find ‘most’ or ‘some’ of the information trustworthy.
• A 2024 study of Facebook data by Penn State researchers found that three out of four shared links were posted without the user first clicking them.

How to Evaluate Scientific Research

Another area where misinformation thrives is in the presentation of scientific data. Sometimes scientists design research to be media-friendly, but it’s based on biased sources. At other times, the emotions or personal beliefs of the researchers skew results.

Funding and bias

• Is an interest with a stake in the outcome (such as a food or supplement manufacturer) paying the researchers? We often consider studies funded by multiple sources, such as government and industry, to be strong, but you must scrutinize all funding sources for potential conflicts of interest. Research with no declared funding also warrants further investigation into its source and quality, as it may lack necessary resources or peer oversight.
• Are the researchers balanced and unbiased? Look for conflicts of interest (e.g., funding, professional affiliations, advertising support).

Study design

• How many subjects were there, and how long was the study?
• Did the study account for all potential confounders (factors that might influence the results besides the one being tested)? For example, ‘Is the illness caused by exposure to X, or by a different behavior or characteristic shared by people with the condition?
• Did the researchers compare the active substance to a placebo in a blinded fashion?
• Could there be reverse causation? For example, are people becoming overweight because they are drinking diet soda? Or are overweight people more likely to choose diet soda to consume fewer calories?

Source and credibility

• Did researchers conduct the study on people, or is it ‘preliminary animal research’?
• Was there a peer review?
• Did the researchers use primary or secondary sources of information? Look for sources that are governed by a reputable industry or that are members of one.

Measurement issues

• Does the study rely on participants’ unreliable self-reported data (e.g., recollection of diet or activity)?
• If researchers gave participants instructions (such as taking a daily supplement or eating a certain number of servings), was there any evidence that participants followed them?

A Word of Caution on Meta-Analyses

Be wary of the meta-analysis. When you see that the researchers reviewed hundreds or thousands of studies, it’s easy to assume that the results are credible. Still, sometimes the meta-analysis isn’t the best way to answer a specific question. Anyone can conduct a meta-analysis, which combines the results of multiple studies. It’s far better to pool the original data from each study, but this research method takes much more time and expertise.
To illustrate the kind of critical flaws that can occur, consider this case: authors of a large meta-analysis concluded that people randomly assigned to replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat had no lower risk of heart disease. A closer look revealed three critical flaws:

• Flaw 1: Included groups given margarine loaded with trans fat.
• Flaw 2: Failed to mention evidence that saturated fat increases LDL cholesterol.
• Flaw 3: Media misinterpretation (“butter is back”).

Understanding these potential pitfalls is key to interpreting reported findings, particularly when measuring risk.

Interpreting Risk: Distinguishing Absolute vs. Relative Risk

When reading studies, keep in mind the difference between absolute risk and relative risk. If the absolute risk of a disease is 5%, and a particular food increases that risk by a relative risk of 18%, the actual increase is only 0.9% (5% of 18%). Not 118%, like many people assume.
Experts consider a risk increase of less than 50% weak, 51-200% moderate, and more than 200% strong. For example, smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by 2500%; this is a strong correlation.

By carefully distinguishing between absolute and relative risk, you take a significant step toward deconstructing sensationalized findings. The final layer of defense is ensuring the source itself is trustworthy.

Tips for Finding Trustworthy Health Information

To properly vet a research study, consider the following key questions:

Website credentials

• Look for sites that end in .gov, .edu, or .org. Some .com sites can be good, but you have to do some research.
• Always read the “About Us” section on websites. A reputable site will include its mission statement, its leadership team, and contact information.

Verification and vetting

• Check Snopes, PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, the Washington Post Fact Checker, or Reuters Fact Check.
• Basically, you just want to avoid the comments section altogether.
• Look for corroborating sources.

Final Thoughts:

By questioning the motives of authors and publishers, scrutinizing the fine print of scientific research, and leveraging reliable fact-checking resources, you will be able to separate the truly trustworthy information from the “fake news.”