Misinformation

The very best of intentions won’t make up for the possible results of bad information. Even the very brightest among us can get it wrong from time to time. Sometimes it’s the wording, and as we know, that is subjective and sometimes the information is plainly wrong. In this last 15 months during COVID-19, we have witnessed an avalanche of misinformation and miscommunication of reliable information, whether it was about who could get it to how bad it could affect us, and whether the vaccines were safe to the extreme belief that it was all a hoax perpetrated by some evil cabal who were bent on stealing our ‘rights'.

Science is always evolving

I have to admit, this last year may go down as the worst for dubious information, and from some sources that at least appear to be legit on the surface. The truth is that our best science was unsure about how bad the virus could be or how it was passed from one person to another, etc. Remember the argument about whether it was transmissible in other ways other than touch. We soon learned that close proximity made us vulnerable. That the mist from our mouth and nose could be the main mode of transmission was debated fiercely; It may seem silly now, but that was a real thing in the void of real and robust understanding about the virus. That was less about misinformation and more about simply not having good enough science at the time.

COVID-19 information versus hepatitis C

It has been no different for hep C over the years, and although I am sure I have not heard it all, I have heard my fair share of versions of how hep C affects us and whether it is curable, etc. One of the things that needs mentioning is anecdotal vs evidence-based information. Personally, I do put stock in what people tell about their own experiences with hep C or anything else for that matter, and never dismiss it off-hand. Science requires more rigid criteria to prove one thing over another, and I get it. Looking at a large group and using standards that are strict, science provides us with data and knowledge that gives us answers to issues that affect a majority of people, not individuals, so I rely on both the anecdotal and the science to make my assessment of what sounds correct. Using critical thinking, we have at least a chance at understanding better what we can do to ensure our safety and helps us make the best choices for our care.

There are always exceptions. What works for the majority does not always work the same for the few. A good example to me is treatment side effects. When people ask me about side effects, I tell them what people who have treated experience, which ranges from nothing or minor, to a very few who say they feel horrible in treatment. They can both be right, and we cannot reliably predict what any one person will experience. The majority will experience minor side effects that resolve in time, and often during treatment or soon after treatment completion. This, I believe, is true for most.