Viral Lies: When Health Advice Goes Viral for the Wrong Reasons

Side effects may include believing everything you see online.

In an era where we have access to more information than ever about our health and wellbeing, why are we feeling more overwhelmed and confused than ever?

Over the past two decades there has been a shift towards healthcare providers empowering patients to collaboratively manage their health by providing them with the knowledge, skills and confidence to work in partnership with their healthcare professionals. This has been accomplished by the explosion of health information online as well as via social media platforms. In fact, most government health agencies now have multiple social media channels to reach their target audience, which was largely driven by the COVID-19 pandemic.

These methods have been incredibly effective, particularly for reaching younger generations who have grown up with iPads in hand and curated social media accounts at the ready.

In fact, a survey carried out by the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne reviewed over 1,488 children aged between 12–17 years of age and found that 63% of teenagers are getting their health information from social media, with leading topics being fitness and diet.

What we've observed lately is that conventional health practitioners no longer seem to be the individuals that people turn to for health advice online. The rise of 'Wellness Experts', 'Wellness Strategists' as well as powerful fitness and beauty influencers have started dominating content related to health and wellbeing across social media. And readers are loving it. Many of these online personalities have hundreds of thousands of followers and deliver their content in an approachable, off-the-cuff way that users find both relatable and aspirational. A blue checkmark has now become as powerful as a university degree.

Misinformation, Now With a Blue Checkmark

However, recent studies analysing medical mistruths and misinformation online have urged the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) to issue warnings to patients about the potential harms of incorrect social media advice.

The University of Sydney conducted a study analysing 982 posts across Instagram and TikTok related to medical screening tests that were promoted by influencers reaching 200 million followers. Read that number again!

The study found that 68% of influencers had financial interests in promoting the tests. It also revealed that just 15% of posts mentioned potential harms, 6% mentioned the risks of overdiagnosis or overtreatment, and 6% mentioned scientific evidence to support their claims.

An obvious example of this has been the rise in popularity of longevity clinics. These clinics claim to combine cutting-edge diagnostics with personalised interventions aimed at extending healthspan (we have to admit — it does sound good). However, some practitioners view these clinics as pseudoscience, with blown-out waitlists and a cost of entry in the thousands. Many of the tests and metrics used have little to no data to support their implementation, and the potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment may actually lead to harm rather than 'health'.

Many clinics are playing into the recent longevity trend by partnering with influencers who share their journeys during the testing process. These individuals provide an aesthetic hot take on their experience and offer their followers a personal discount code to sign up to the clinic themselves. For those in the marketing world, this is straight from the social media marketing playbook — it allows the influencer to receive a kickback from the company in the form of either free product or a payment/percentage of each sale or sign-up resulting from their code.

For some of us, this presents a glaring conflict of interest that brings into question the authenticity of their claims. Whilst this is standard practice across social media marketing campaigns, it hits differently in the healthcare space. Registered healthcare practitioners are governed by codes of conduct and practice that outline the boundaries of ethical practice. Most influencers promoting healthcare testing and products are not registered health professionals and are therefore not governed by these same standards. This becomes even more concerning as several social media platforms (SMPs) are moving away from fact-checking their content, leaving it in the hands of the user to discern fact from fiction.

Filtered Facts and Fake Fixes

Other areas of healthcare receiving similar buzz online include Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, peptides, and Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT). The volume of content related to these agents is staggering, conflicting, and frankly alarming.

When we looked at some of the accounts publishing information specifically related to GLP-1 agonists and other peptides, most were not credentialled healthcare providers, and most mentioned molecules that were still experimental and not registered for human use in their country. In one podcast, the guest speaker injected the host with three different peptides during the recording. All three of these agents are experimental and not approved for use in humans by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), nor were they prescribed by a health professional. Incidentally, the person administering the injections has a background in business administration and commerce — not medicine — and also runs a biotech company focused on preventative care and longevity. While some may view his commentary on peptides as appealing, we found it downright reckless.

This podcast is unfortunately not a unique example. There have been increasing numbers of social media influencers extolling the benefits of peptides and going as far as recommending how to 'stack' different peptide molecules into a personalised regime. Some of these 'stacks' include up to 7–8 different peptides. What many of them fail to mention is that most of these agents are not FDA or TGA approved, and that many of the studies supporting the potential benefits of their use have been limited to animal studies.

Where people are sourcing these agents from is also concerning. Mostly they are being purchased from unregulated pharmaceutical channels and are labelled "for research purposes only." They are also plagued with issues around contamination and potency.

It's difficult not to get caught up in the excitement these emerging treatments present. However, providing medical advice on agents that are classified as 'drugs' and are currently not approved for use in humans for these proposed conditions is, at best, inaccurate and, at worst, dangerous — not to mention potentially illegal.

Wellness or Woo-Woo?

The supplement world is cashing in too. Many brands are jumping on the bandwagon by bringing products to market claiming to be 'GLP-1 in drink form' for weight loss, oral Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide (NAD) for longevity, and topical peptides for anti-ageing. However, the studies supporting the use of these agents for these proposed indications have serious limitations, and further research is needed to substantiate the claims being made by companies marketing them as 'gamechangers' in the wellness space. Let's not get started on the prices — with some longevity supplements costing hundreds of dollars per month.

A major target of the marketing strategies for these agents is women — particularly those entering the peri-menopausal era of their lives. Feeling dismissed with responses of 'everything is normal' from their general practitioners regarding brain fog, weight gain and other common symptoms, women can't help but lean into the hype. As health professionals, it's clear that we need to do better.

Danger Zone

Perhaps the most alarming consequence of health misinformation is not just what people are being encouraged to try — it's what they are being discouraged from doing. In our experience working in clinical care, we have witnessed firsthand the devastating outcomes that can result when patients abandon evidence-based treatments in favour of 'natural' alternatives recommended by unqualified voices online.

In some of the most heartbreaking cases, this has occurred in the context of cancer care — where patients have delayed or refused conventional treatment based on advice from online personalities with no medical training, only to face disease progression and, in some cases, irreversible harm or death.

These are not hypothetical risks. They are real outcomes experienced by real patients. This is precisely why the work of cutting through misinformation is not simply about wellness — it is a matter of life and death.

Scrolling Towards a Solution

Another issue with reaching for our phones to answer our health and wellbeing questions is confirmation bias.

What do we mean by this? Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, favour, and share information that reinforces your existing beliefs or assumptions while ignoring contradictory evidence. Online, this is reinforced and fuelled by predictive algorithms on SMPs that feed users similar content and accounts, creating echo chambers for particular opinions and beliefs.

This increases polarising viewpoints on particular topics and can aid the spread of misinformation. Hover over an ad for a weight loss supplement or a video about peptides and you'll find yourself bombarded by similar content again and again. Psychologically, the more we see something, the more trusted, familiar, and preferred it feels. When we consider how infrequently we visit our general practitioners and other health professionals — perhaps a couple of times a year — it's no wonder that the faces we see on social media become the ones we begin to trust for health information.

Your Treatment Prescription

The more we read on social media about these health and wellness topics, the more we notice that everyone is claiming to be an expert. With several platforms loosening their grip on fact-checking content, we as users need to become more discerning about the voices we listen to online.

Pretty Proven is here to help.

Pretty Proven is authored by clinical pharmacists and each month we will be publishing articles and content that create clarity in a crowded space, prioritising truth over trends. Pretty Proven is here to help you feel informed, assured, and empowered about your health. No hype — just facts.

So, how can we assess the health and wellness information we see online to ensure that what we're reading and hearing is based on fact, rather than the opinions or assumptions of others?

1. What credentials does the author have?

Ask yourself — are they adequately trained or credentialled to be making these claims?

Self-proclaimed 'wellness experts' or fitness influencers are not adequately credentialled to be providing medical or drug information to others online.

Look for pre-nominal (e.g. 'Dr') or post-nominal (e.g. MD, B.Pharm) credentials that describe the person's training and ensure that they are relevant to the advice being given. If you're in Australia, you can also look for the practitioner's AHPRA registration number, which may be listed in their bio, or you can check the AHPRA register of practitioners directly.

And just remember — just because someone calls themselves 'Dr' does not mean they are a Doctor of Medicine.

2. Is the product or treatment they are recommending TGA or FDA approved?

And if it is, is it approved for that particular indication? There are many drugs and experimental molecules being discussed and recommended online without TGA or FDA approval.

Check the status of any medicinal product prior to purchasing. In Australia, you can find this information on the TGA website.

The TGA has a two-tiered system for the regulation of medicines, including complementary medicines.

Higher-risk medicines must be 'registered' on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) and are assessed by the TGA for quality, safety, and efficacy.

Lower-risk medicines containing pre-approved, low-risk ingredients that make limited claims can be 'listed' on the ARTG. Listed medicines are assessed by the TGA for quality and safety, but not efficacy.

3. Is there evidence to support the claims made about the medicine or treatment being discussed?

Look out for statements containing 'may' or 'could'. This generally indicates low levels of evidence or theoretical benefits only. These types of statements are generally not substantiated by robust Phase III and IV clinical trials and may be limited to animal studies.

Many videos related to supplements and peptides report individual and subjective outcomes that are self-reported by the author and not measured using established, evidence-based metrics. Claims not supported by robust data remain opinion and personal experience.

4. Does this person have a financial interest in the product or treatment they are discussing?

Look out for posts labelled #ad or those offering discount codes. This generally indicates a financial kickback or incentive to promote the product, which may lead you to question the authenticity of their claims.

5. If something seems too good to be true — it probably is.

It's an age-old saying, but it still holds true.

Look out for wild claims, sensationalised statements, and before-and-after photos that may be edited or misleading. This is particularly relevant to health and fitness supplements touting benefits for weight loss, muscle gain, and de-bloating.

We hope this post resonated with you and helped you feel more confident navigating health information online.

Yours in truth, Pretty Proven.