Consumer Health Digest is a free weekly e-mail newsletter edited by William M. London, Ed.D., M.P.H., with help from Stephen Barrett, M.D., It summarizes scientific reports; legislative developments; enforcement actions; other news items; Web site evaluations; recommended and nonrecommended books; research tips; and other information relevant to consumer protection and consumer decision-making. The Digestās primary focus is on health, but occasionally it includes non-health scams and practical tips. Items posted to this archive may be updated when relevant information becomes available. To subscribe, click here.
Medical board advocacy agency adopts misinformation/disinformation policy. The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) House of Delegates has adopted a 12-page report from its Ethics and Professionalism Committee that: (a) summarizes the Committeeās views about misinformation and disinformation, (b) offers physicians āguidance about how best to carry out their professional responsibilities in combating misinformation and safeguarding public health,ā and (c) offers recommendations for state and territorial medical and osteopathic boards to protect the public from physicians spreading misinformation. [FSMB. Professional expectations regarding medical misinformation and disinformation. April 2022] Page 5 of the report states:
Medical professionalism dictates that physicians base the care they provide on the best scientific evidence available at the time, while being truthful and transparent about the sources of their recommendations to foster trust in delivering ethical medical care. While there are gray areas in many aspects of the practice of medicine, which is inherently dynamic and constantly evolving, physicians must exercise care and ensure that any recommendations or prescriptions, especially in a fast-changing pandemic, have a compelling and evidence-based foundation in the medical literature.
The report recommends that state medical boards:
- adopt a policy that clarifies board expectations regarding the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation by licensees
- retain their legislated authority to regulate the professional conduct of licensees to protect the public
- consider the full array of authorized grounds for disciplinary action in their Medical Practice Acts when adjudicating cases regarding misinformation and disinformation
- consider whether there are non-disciplinary options that could help a licensee understand the ethical duty to convey accurate information and change or remediate their behavior appropriately
- not be dissuaded from carrying out their duty to protect the public by concerns about potential challenges to disciplinary decisions when these decisions are based on sound regulatory considerations for public protection
While Medical Practice Acts in some states give boards broad authority to take disciplinary action against licensees for spreading disinformation, others limit boards to consider only infractions occurring within the context of a physicianāpatient relationship or only during the provision of medical care to patients.
In an interview with MedPage Today, FSMB president Humayun Chaudhry, DO noted that several recently introduced bills in state legislatures are intended to curb medical board authority. [Fiore K. FSMB adopts misinformation policy. MedPage Today, May 5, 2022]
Center for Inquiry helps federal analysis of COVID misinformation. The Center for Inquiry (CFI) has provided an 11-page response to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services request for comment on the impact of digital health misinformation during the COVIDā19 pandemic. [Majeed A. HHS is trying to understand health misinformation; CFI is part of the solution. Center for Inquiry, May 5, 2022] CFIās response addresses the impacts of misinformation, efforts to address it, legal perspectives, and CFIās opposition to legislation based on misinformation. It concludes:
While the issues of misinformation are exacerbated by the pandemic conditions, it is necessary to address them throughout public life. Only a population that is educated in reason and science, and that comes to expect those values to be represented well in public policy, will be able to withstand the inevitable onslaught of misinformation. [p. 11]
Science prevails in parental COVID-19 vaccine dispute. A family court judge in Nevada has awarded final medical decision-making authority to a mother who wanted her children (ages 8 and 10) vaccinated against COVID-19. The case arose because the father, who had joint custody of the children, was opposed to them receiving the vaccine. The father said at a preliminary hearing that he disagreed with recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the childrenās pediatrician. In support of the motherās case, Dr. Stephen Barrett submitted an expert declaration and documents supporting the motherās case. At the final hearing, Dr. Barrett testified that the father relied on unreliable sources opposing vaccination. The mother strengthened her case by carefully documenting how the father exhibited poor judgment. But she was also fortunate that the judge saw the situation clearly. [Barrett S. Court sides with science in parental COVID-19 vaccine dispute. Quackwatch, May 6, 2022]
2001 || 2002 || 2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007
2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 || 2013 || 2014
2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || 2021
2022 || 2023 || 2024 || 2025
To subscribe, click here.
