We need to examine the differential impact of false information and truthful information. Is the harm caused by falsehoods offset by the dissemination of truth?

Can the viral spread of disinformation and misinformation ever be completely curbed? It is a rhetorical question. We know by now that while false narratives of any kind can be combated with the correct information, they can’t really be eliminated. Although that has always been the case, today, compared to anytime in the past, the challenge has grown disproportionately bigger, driven by ever-advancing communications technology. 

Health is one area which has been most impacted by the surge in misleading, unscientific information. And social media has put it on steroids. During the COVID pandemic, the world also had to navigate an infodemic. Besides quack remedies for the condition, vaccines became the number one topic of misleading health claims. Even today, the misinformation lingers. According to a survey of US adults, in October 2023, Americans were less likely to view approved vaccines as safe than they were in April 2021!

How can we explain this drop in vaccine confidence? Misinformation has certainly played a role, but it also reveals inadequacies in the global fact-checking efforts. And this can’t be attributed solely to insufficient funding. We need to examine the differential impact of false and truthful information. Is the harm caused by falsehoods offset by the dissemination of truth?

A review article published in the journal Nature titled ‘The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction’ offers some valuable insights. “Not only can belief in misinformation lead to poor judgements and decision-making, it also exerts a lingering influence on people’s reasoning after it has been corrected — an effect known as the continued influence effect,” it notes.

In the case of vaccine misinformation, the article reasons, prebunking – pre-emptively refuting expected false narratives, misinformation or manipulation techniques – works better than debunking. As Mark Twain once said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.” Falsehood hits the ground running as it is proactive. Truth, in the fact-checking context, is largely reactive in nature. So, by the time the fact-checkers spring to action, the damage is already done. 

That said, when it comes to combating health misinformation, it is best to adopt a hybrid strategy. Prebunking will help in cases where we can anticipate misinformation. But this isn’t always possible considering the fecundity of the falsehood. Thus, debunking – disproving and countering false claims with evidence – also plays an important role in helping people recognise and call out unscientific claims and harmful health advice. 

The same technology that spreads the misinformation can be a strong ally in the global fight against health misinformation. It is an ever-renewing, ever-evolving tug of war that fits into the archetype of the eternal struggle between right and wrong. 

Read More : Fact-check: Debunking 3 myths about veganism