EIDM Map Home
Pin
Add idea Comment Move Cross-link Cite New map
Timothy Caulfield Person #690184
Timothy Caulfield is a Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, a Professor in the Faculty of Law and the School of Public Health, and Research Director of the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta.

  • His interdisciplinary research on topics like stem cells, genetics, research ethics, the public representations of science and public health policy has allowed him to publish over 350 academic articles.
  • He has won numerous academic and writing awards and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. He contributes frequently to the popular press and is the author of two national bestsellers: The Cure for Everything: Untangling the Twisted Messages about Health, Fitness and Happiness (Penguin 2012) and Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?: When Celebrity Culture and Science Clash (Penguin 2015). His most recent book is Relax, Dammit!: A User's Guide to the Age of Anxiety (Penguin Random House, 2020).
  • Caulfield is also the host and co-producer of the award winning documentary TV show, A User's Guide to Cheating Death, which has been shown in over 60 countries, including streaming on Netflix in North America.
Edit details
Rate: Low123456789High
Page view
Show >>Citations5Comments0HistoryInfo<< Hide
CitationsAdd new citationList by: CiterankMap
Link[1] Timothy Caulfield - Home Page

Cited by: David Price 4:52 PM 10 October 2022 GMT
URL:
Link[2] Newspaper Coverage of COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement for Organ Transplant

Author: Marco Zenone, Timothy Caulfield
Publication date: 28 December 2022
Publication info: JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(12):e2248800
Cited by: David Price 11:12 PM 25 November 2023 GMT
Citerank: (2) 701020CANMOD – PublicationsPublications by CANMOD Members144B5ACA0, 704045Covid-19859FDEF6
URL:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4880
Excerpt / Summary
[JAMA Network Open, 28 December 2022]

Consensus exists among US transplant authorities to encourage COVID-19 vaccination in candidate organ recipients to minimize risk of posttransplant infection and increase odds of organ acceptance amid scarce organ resources.1 However, only 36% of US transplant centers require COVID-19 vaccination.2 While lifestyle and vaccination requirements are not new organ transplant conditions, the misinformation and public controversy surrounding COVID-19 policies may have led to misinformed or unbalanced portrayals of COVID-19 vaccines in the popular press.3 In this qualitative study, we examined newspaper coverage of the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for organ transplant to understand reporting portrayals.
Link[3] COVID-19 lockdown revisionism

Author: Blake Murdoch, Timothy Caulfield
Publication date: 17 April 2023
Publication info: CMAJ April 17, 2023 195 (15) E552-E554
Cited by: David Price 8:09 PM 10 December 2023 GMT
Citerank: (3) 701020CANMOD – PublicationsPublications by CANMOD Members144B5ACA0, 704045Covid-19859FDEF6, 715328Nonpharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs)859FDEF6
URL:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.221543
Excerpt / Summary
[CMAJ, 17 April 2023]

The term “lockdown” has become a powerful and perverted word in the infodemic about democracies’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdown, as used in public discourse, has expanded to include any public health measure, even if it places little to no restriction on social mobility or interaction. For example, a working literature review and meta-analysis on the effects of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality misleadingly defined lockdowns as “the imposition of at least 1 compulsory non-pharmaceutical intervention.” This working paper therefore conflated mandatory isolation for people with confirmed infections and masking policies with heavy-handed limitations on freedom of movement, and since it gained viral fame, it has helped fuel calls for “no more lockdowns.” This working paper has been highly critiqued and is less convincing than comparative assessments of health measures, like the Oxford Stringency Index.

Here, we discuss the spread of misinformation on lockdowns and other public health measures, which we refer to as “lock-down revisionism,” and how this phenomenon has damaged trust in public health initiatives designed to keep people safer…
Link[4] The influence of sociodemographic factors on COVID-19 vaccine certificate acceptance: A cross-sectional study

Author: David Smith, David T. Zhu, Steven Hawken, A. Brianne Bota, Salima S. Mithani, Alessandro Marcon, Gordon Pennycook, Devon Greyson, Timothy Caulfield, Frank Graves, Jeff Smith, Kumanan Wilson
Publication date: 8 June 2023
Publication info: Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, Volume 19, 2023 - Issue 2
Cited by: David Price 8:13 PM 10 December 2023 GMT
Citerank: (3) 701020CANMOD – PublicationsPublications by CANMOD Members144B5ACA0, 704041Vaccination859FDEF6, 704045Covid-19859FDEF6
URL:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2023.2220628
Excerpt / Summary
[Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 8 June 2023]

Vaccine certificates have been implemented worldwide, aiming to promote vaccination rates and to reduce the spread of COVID-19. However, their use during the COVID-19 pandemic was controversial and has been criticized for infringing upon medical autonomy and individual rights. We administered a national online survey exploring social and demographic factors predicting the degree of public approval of vaccine certificates in Canada. We conducted a multivariate linear regression which revealed which factors were predictive of vaccine certificate acceptance in Canada. Self-reported minority status (p < .001), rurality (p < .001), political ideology (p < .001), age (p < .001), having children under 18 in the household (p < .001), education (p = .014), and income status (p = .034) were significant predictors of attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine certificates. We observed the lowest vaccine-certificate approval among participants who: self-identify as a visible minority; live in rural areas; are politically conservative; are 18–34 years of age; have children under age 18 living in the household; have completed an apprenticeship or trades education; and those with an annual income between $100,000–$159,999. The present findings are valuable for their ability to inform the implementation of vaccine certificates during future pandemic scenarios which may require targeted communication between public health agencies and under-vaccinated populations.
Link[5] Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis

Author: Marco Zenone, Jeremy Snyder, Jean-Christophe Bélisle-Pipon, Timothy Caulfield, May van Schalkwyk, Nason Maani
Publication date: 31 May 2023
Publication info: JMIR Infodemiology 2023;3:e43548
Cited by: David Price 0:34 AM 14 December 2023 GMT
Citerank: (3) 701020CANMOD – PublicationsPublications by CANMOD Members144B5ACA0, 704015Cancer859FDEF6, 715666Social networks859FDEF6
URL: DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/43548
Excerpt / Summary
[JMIR Infodemiology, 31 May 2023]

Background: Alternative cancer treatment is associated with a greater risk of death than cancer patients undergoing conventional treatments. Anecdotal evidence suggests cancer patients view paid advertisements promoting alternative cancer treatment on social media, but the extent and nature of this advertising remain unknown. This context suggests an urgent need to investigate alternative cancer treatment advertising on social media.

Objective: This study aimed to systematically analyze the advertising activities of prominent alternative cancer treatment practitioners on Meta platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Audience Network. We specifically sought to determine (1) whether paid advertising for alternative cancer treatment occurs on Meta social media platforms, (2) the strategies and messages of alternative cancer providers to reach and appeal to prospective patients, and (3) how the efficacy of alternative treatments is portrayed.

Methods: Between December 6, 2021, and December 12, 2021, we collected active advertisements from alternative cancer clinics using the Meta Ad Library. The information collected included identification number, URL, active/inactive status, dates launched/ran, advertiser page name, and a screenshot (image) or recording (video) of the advertisement. We then conducted a content analysis to determine how alternative cancer providers communicate the claimed benefits of their services and evaluated how they portrayed alternative cancer treatment efficacy.

Results: We identified 310 paid advertisements from 11 alternative cancer clinics on Meta (Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger) marketing alternative treatment approaches, care, and interventions. Alternative cancer providers appealed to prospective patients through eight strategies: (1) advertiser representation as a legitimate medical provider (n=289, 93.2%); (2) appealing to persons with limited treatments options (n=203, 65.5%); (3) client testimonials (n=168, 54.2%); (4) promoting holistic approaches (n=121, 39%); (5) promoting messages of care (n=81, 26.1%); (6) rhetoric related to science and research (n=72, 23.2%); (7) rhetoric pertaining to the latest technology (n=63, 20.3%); and (8) focusing treatment on cancer origins and cause (n=43, 13.9%). Overall, 25.8% (n=80) of advertisements included a direct statement claiming provider treatment can cure cancer or prolong life.

Conclusions: Our results provide evidence alternative cancer providers are using Meta advertising products to market scientifically unsupported cancer treatments. Advertisements regularly referenced “alternative” and “natural” treatment approaches to cancer. Imagery and text content that emulated evidence-based medical providers created the impression that the offered treatments were effective medical options for cancer. Advertisements exploited the hope of patients with terminal and poor prognoses by sharing testimonials of past patients who allegedly were cured or had their lives prolonged. We recommend that Meta introduce a mandatory, human-led authorization process that is not reliant upon artificial intelligence for medical-related advertisers before giving advertising permissions. Further research should focus on the conflict of interest between social media platforms advertising products and public health.
Get more messages New comment Show followedSee the map community
Find maps and ideas – via search or list

Search:
 
Search for:Any wordAll wordsExact phrase
Search in:IdeasCitationsCommentsFiles
Search maps in same organisation only
List:
All the ideas on this map All my maps & bookmarks
All the ideas I have created on any map
Connect

1. See the map community 2. Change my avatar / photo

3. Follow changes to this map by email or RSSRSS
Email:Immediate Daily digest Weekly digest
4. Invite others to this map
Enter invitation message

Enter email addresses or enter @handles or get link ?
5. Set up a map community meeting

6. Unsubscribe from all site emailHide?



No meetings are scheduled at present
Home » Quick guide »Change language » Posters » My saved views »
Getting data...