 |
| Literally only put this here so I'd have a better thumbnail image to choose from on Facebook. |
Oh - what's the little number right there? Nothing. Just a citation back to an article that, based on the SEER (Source Educational Evaluation Rubric) method of evaluating resources, checks out.
Evaluating Sources
SEER is awesome. It changed everything for me. It's a rubric used to help you determine whether or not a resource you're reading is reputable or reliable (2). Basically, you're supposed to consider:
- Authority: Is the site well regarded, cited, and written by experts in the field?
- Educational Value: Does the site content help advance educational goals?
- Intent: Is the site a well-respected source of content intended to inform users?
- Originality: Is the site a source of original content and viewpoints?
- Quality: Is the site highly vetted with good coverage of the topical area?
(SOURCE OF TEXT: Turnitin.com White Paper)
After reading this blog post, you'll probably want to consider whether or not my blog checks out using the SEER method of evaluation. I'll tell you right now, it probably won't. Even with two years of library and information science graduate school under my belt, I wouldn't consider myself an expert. Educational value of my site? Yeah, no. Intent? I guess so. Originality? Probably not. Quality? Yeah, definitely not.
But I do care. A lot. Which means nothing in the academic world.
Still, I hope some of my friends will take what I have to say to heart.
IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACYYY
First, know that the debate is rampant. Take Dr. Joseph Mercola, for example. From my experience, people either love him or they hate him. Personally, I try to stay away from anything he's associated with given that hyperbolic language gives me hives and makes me feel like the marketing strategists are trying to use psychological warfare on me.
Thing is, lots of what he says makes sense on a surface level. Plants, raw food, antioxidants. That stuff is good for you. That stuff changes your body chemistry for the better. Duh. I don't need a medical degree to tell me that.
Then you think - well - if that's the case, why is the FDA riding his #$% so much? (3)
Oh, probably because the FDA and The Corporate Lobbyists are in cahoots, right? I mean, They Don't Want You to Know that garlic can cure colds because then you won't run out and spend your hard earned money on Nyquil and Alkaseltzer anymore, or whatever. So, better shut it down, Mercola, or you'll terk-er-jerbs.
 |
| This is mostly here for my husband's amusement. |
Maybe. That kind of makes sense to any intelligent person, too. I don't need a PhD in Political Science or an MBA from Harvard to know that there is waaaay, way more going on inside these government agencies than any of us are aware of, and I don't have to be a complete and total cynic to know that a disgusting ton of it is probably pretty corrupt and definitely not for the benefit of the American people. That's just human nature, sadly, and I accept that.
So, just by being alert and aware, I can gather that:
- Fresh, organic plants are good for me and keep me healthy and help me heal
- The FDA isn't perfect, and to trust in anything wholeheartedly just because someone I don't even know tells me it's safe to goes against my intuition.
I'm friends with a ton of different kinds of people. I'm friends with people who eat McDonald's three times a day, and people who homebirth. I'm friends with people who eat white bread and people who make their own multi-grain bread at home from grains they grow in their backyard.
On my newsfeed, I often see postings from my more "activist-y" friends linking back to articles about how sugar is the devil incarnate or that all the OB-GYNs in the country hate women or something.
One website that I see pop up often on my newsfeed is NaturalNews.com.
The first time I went there, it was because I had followed a link entitled Nine Foods You Should Never Eat Again.
I had to follow it.
Nine foods I should literally never, ever eat again?
I figured it would list things like tire rubber or laundry detergent, since I honestly couldn't think of any single food that someone should literally never eat again.
When I got to the microwaveable popcorn, I was totally bummed out. I love popcorn. I know the "buttery" ones are loaded with sodium and MSG, which isn't that great and well, really kind of heinous. But otherwise, I think it's totally yummy, and for a salty, crunchy snack food, it doesn't usually leave me feeling like a fat blob of crap afterward if I happen to eat an entire bag of it.
Then I read this sentence:
"Practically every component of microwaveable popcorn, from the genetically-modified (GM) corn kernels to the processed salt and preservative chemicals used to enhance its flavor, is unhealthy and disease-promoting." (Source.)Disease-promoting.
Wait ...
... disease-promoting?
What the $%&* does that even mean?
I said it over and over again. Disease...promoting.
What kind of diseases? There's, like, literally an infinite number of diseases, I mean, I would assume that the list compounds every day, in some regard, with cell mutations and whatever. And this writer seems to think that my favorite bag of Orville Redenbacher Movie-Theatre Butter (represent, Valparaiso) is going to ... what? Promote ... diseases in my body?
Okay, maybe if I decided that I was going to quit eating all other foods ever and ONLY eat microwave popcorn for the rest of my life. Or if we created, like, a microwaveable popcorn concentrate, all the artificial flavors and everything, all mashed up, liquified, and then delivered intravenously so it was like eating 9000 bags of microwaveable popcorn a day. That'll uff anyone up pretty quick.
But, that phrase - "disease promoting" - was enough to convince me that I wasn't reading a very reputable source, but clearly it didn't (and doesn't) phase many people who are still reading the article and circulating it every which way and freaking out.
I'm Not Saying Ponzi Scheme, But...
I want to point something else out to you about this website, though, and others like it.
I've circled an ad there, in red.
These ads are a lot different than some Google AdSense ads, or ads linking to other websites.
These ads link to sites selling very specific products and supplements. (You can learn more about why this matters here - note that this links back to someone's blog. This person has clearly done some research, and the findings are pretty common sense and easily verified, but generally speaking blogs wouldn't normally be a source I'd consider reputable. That aside, I do take this guy and his easily verifiable facts at his word, as much as I can. You can't really make much of that stuff up.)
Anyone with their eyes open can see that there's a not-so-innocent, kind of weird connection between the hyperbolic (DISEASE-PROMOTING) language and the cheap (CURE DISEASES) ads.
Then there are the citations to that article ...
... or, rather the lack of one.
Citations, Citations, CITATIONS! Something Better Than Reader's Digest, Too, Please.
Citations matter. Next time you read an article, scroll down and see what sources the writer drew from to come to the conclusions that inspired the information that he or she wrote about. Once you look at those, look at their citations, and their citations, and so on.
This article does have one citation. To Reader's Digest. The article on Reader's Digest, however, was lacking in citations. And Reader's Digest in and of itself isn't a terrible source - but when you're advising people in the matters of health, medicine, and nutrition ... are you really going to cite ... Reader's Digest?
Are you really going to say, "I'm an expert in my field. Check out this article I wrote based on another article I found in Reader's Digest."
Here's one I saw a few times today. The article was called A Work About Sweeteners, and again, we're looking at some fairly serious claims: "A diet high in fructose has been linked to obesity and metabolic syndrome."
Everyone Calm Down - Was it Linked To? Or Proven?
"Has been linked to" is a phrase that I've been trained to be wary of.
In this case, the conclusion that I believe we're supposed to arrive at upon reading that sentence is that "it's been found that some overweight people with metabolic syndrome also happen to have diets high in fructose, therefore we believe that fructose is a probable cause of their condition, therefore it would be wise to avoid fructose."
The problem with that phrase - "has been linked to" - and furthermore, the problem with taking that phrase and letting it freak you out, is the fact that that phrase incites the well-know fallacy (and I want this to stick with you, friends):
Correlation does not (always) equal causation. (This is actually a pretty flawed cliche, but it's important to note that we can still draw at least some logic from the idea. Bad for hard science, not-so-bad when you're just trying to get a grip on an idea like we might be trying to do right now.)
Just because a possible link has been identified, doesn't mean it's time to freak out yet. More importantly, if you're going to use the "has been linked to" argument when making what I'm assuming you'd want others to believe are verified health claims, then at the very least you could have some consideration for your readers by noting that there is a difference between a linkage and a hard, proven, medical fact.
Be Wary of Content Farms
Let's continue and look at the citations on this article too. Some of them happen to be links in the text, like the one on the sugar alcohol erythritol. The author says, "Hey, I know this fact is true because it says so here in this article on Livestrong.com."
Really?
Because Livestrong.com is content farm. It's associated with Demand Media, the same amazing people who brought us such research gems as eHow.com and answers.com, those websites burgeoning freelance writers get paid $15 an article to write for while they build up their writing portfolio. (Name in the byline look familiar?)
Maybe I'm not giving this article on Livestrong enough credit. Let's check the citations.
Just Because it's on PubMed Doesn't Mean it Matters
Oh, nice. This one goes back to PubMed. PubMed is a pretty great medical research database. Let's take a look at the article that was cited on PubMed.
So, we should definitely freak out and avoid erythritol because, according to the literature, we have ONE SINGLE recorded case of a woman getting a nasty rash after drinking a beverage that contained erythritol.
One.
The article also cites our friend, NaturalNews.com, as well as a website called the Global Healing Center.
Nice little ad on the Global Healing Center's website.
Check the Date, Dude
What about this article, the one on Global Healing Network that the author of the sugar article is citing? What is that article citing? (Because again, remember, it matters.)
Copyright ... 1975 ...
Really?
The information in this article is nearly forty years old.
Really?!
One basic reference course was all it took to teach me that, when citing sources, in most cases it's important that these sources are current.
According to this great article on Caregiver.org:
Sites should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. It is particularly important that medical information be current, and that the most recent update or review date be posted. Even if the information has not changed, it is helpful to know that the site owners have reviewed it recently to ensure that the information is still valid.Now, sure, we may be dealing with information about sugar that was discovered in the seventies and hasn't changed. According to the citation, the information was even re-released in 1993, which means that just twenty years ago, the information was still good enough to be published by someone at least decently important (Warner Books.)
But the bottom line is that, if I'm going to make a medical or health claim, I'd want to do it right, and make sure that I could prove that the information I was drawing my research from was high quality and highly verifiable.
Some Things Just Make Sense, Though
I want it to be known that I am in no way criticizing anyone for their beliefs or for making the health choices that they make. I'm not even directly critiquing the information in these articles or trying to make anyone feel stupid for buying into certain claims they make.
I also want to make it known that I'm not naive enough to believe that it's all either black or white. I believe in a lot of naturopathic/homeopathic stuff. It makes sense to me. But there's also a lot of stuff in modern medicine that makes sense to me.
The people who are writing articles and publishing books claiming that homeopathy is 100% the way to go have as much to gain from the market as does the FDA and those Evil Corporate Lobbyists. No one is innocent here.
What I am trying to say, however, is that we have to be careful and we have to be aware.
Furthermore, we have to calm down, at least a little bit.
This one documentary I really liked - How to Live Forever - showcases the lives of some really, really old people who drink and smoke and who otherwise put to shame the hyperbolic health claims of people like Dr. Mercola. What I noticed they all have in common, though?
They're just ... happy.
Okay, some are a little cantankerous.
But for the most part, they're just people who have made common sense choices with the foods they eat and the activities they partake in.
Look -
I think we can all agree that the food industry is crap. So here's what you do:
- Buy local produce from farmers whenever humanly possible, or grow your own. Without reading a ton of scary articles with poor citations, any idiot can plainly see that these are good, pure foods that nourish your body without introducing a bunch of spliced, franken-genes or pesticide-y chemicals into your blood stream. It also helps farmers maintain a living, which is nice, and keeps the need to transport plants that grow in the dirt, like what's in your yard (think about it, it's just stupid) all over creation, which is even nicer. (Buying local-organic or growing your own food is just a nice, considerate thing to do, anyway, period.)
- Look at the back of the dad-gum box. Just look at it. Yeah, I know it says "all-natural" on the front, but look at the back. Yeah, I know you can't pronounce half of what's in it. So put it down. You wouldn't go to the pharmacy and start drinking a bottle of shampoo, right? So don't eat that. Try making your own, so you know exactly what's in it. Oh, wait, you really want some Oreos right now? Well, screw it. Eat some Oreos. Ain't gonna kill you. Just wait a few weeks or so before you eat Oreos or chips or drink a soda again, ya fatty. It's that simple.
That's common sense health, to me.
So, next time, before you share that article about saccharine giving lab mice cancer (so we should all stay away from it or risk certain death):
- Use the SEER evaluation method.
- Scroll down, check those citations.
- Then check those citation's citations.
- Make sure the information isn't coming from a content farm.
- Make sure the information is current.
- Consider whether or not someone might be benefiting from these claims financially, at the very least on a grandiose scale.
- Make sure the information is coming from a .edu, .gov, or .org domain name (I know for a fact you can only obtain the former two suffixes with proper credentials.)
- Understand that none of it will be perfect because everyone has something to gain from everything
- Calm down, eat one Pop-Tart, but don't make it a part of your daily routine or encourage your kids to eat it as part of a "balanced breakfast," and don't tell your kids that Pop-Tarts cause cancer or kidney failure or something stupid, because based on the research, no one knows that for sure. However, given that Pop-Tarts are full of chemicals and eating chemicals is generally considered not-good-for-you, you should probably only have the one and not have another one for a pretty long time. Then, go eat a plant, preferably something organic, because that makes sense and is smart.
P.S. I wasn't trying to come off professionally, so if any formatting on the citations is weird or anything like that, just know that my only goal here was to present an opinion in conjunction with some reputable Internet resources (and my forthcoming Master's in Library and Information Science.) And to enlighten people I care about.
-------------------------
1. Lissiman, E., A. Bhasale, and M. Cohen. "Garlic for the Common Cold." Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2009): n. pag. Print.
2. Turnitin.com White Paper: Evaluating Sources (link to .pdf)
3. Walker, Susan J. "Warning Letter." Letter to Joseph Mercola. 16 Feb. 2005. MS.
No comments:
Post a Comment