[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.

[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…

[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.

[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.