A Digital Medicine Show: Zucking Again?
July 13, 2022
Despite what Meta would have us believe, we learn from MIT Technology Review that “Facebook Is Bombarding Cancer Patients with Ads for Unproven Treatments.” Is Facebook actively prioritizing ad dollars over the wellbeing of its users, or is it just too cheap to hire enough fact checkers to keep the ads from slipping past its algorithm? Either way, research shows targeted ads for ineffective or even harmful treatments flooding cancer patients’ Facebook feeds. These nostrums can be extremely expensive, are usually not covered by insurance (for good reason), and often require travel out of the country. To make matters worse, chasing such bogus cures can steer patients away from effective medical care or, if they are pursuing both, actively interfere with treatments like chemotherapy. Reporter Abby Ohlheiser writes:
“Evidence from Facebook and Instagram users, medical researchers, and its own Ad Library suggests that Meta is rife with ads containing sensational health claims, which the company directly profits from. The misleading ads may remain unchallenged for months and even years. Some of the ads reviewed by MIT Technology Review promoted treatments that have been proved to cause acute physical harm in some cases. Other ads pointed users toward highly expensive treatments with dubious outcomes.”
See the article for details on ad campaigns from the quacks at CHIPSA and Verita Life. We also learn about consequences patients can face if they believe the carefully designed claims from such outfits:
“The danger is not simply that the treatments are unproven or ineffective. Some alternative cancer treatments advertised on the platform can cause physical harm. … Unproven treatments can also interact poorly with conventional treatments like chemotherapy should a patient decide to pursue alternative care on their own. Moreover, simply delaying the start of proven therapies by detouring into unproven ones can allow the cancer to advance, complicating and diminishing the effectiveness of further treatment.”
Facilities make a lot of money from these rackets, and it does not come from the pockets of big insurance. For example, we learn:
“One recent GoFundMe campaign for a cancer patient seeking treatment at CHIPSA included a screenshot of a bill for the ‘base amount’ he’d have to pay. It was $36,500 for three weeks of inpatient care in Mexico. That cost would increase once the facility decided on a treatment plan.”
Ohlheiser graciously states Facebook has done better in the last few years to stem the tide of false health claims, but suggests more fact checkers would help it do better. We agree that would be a good solution, if only the company were motivated to use it.
Cynthia Murrell, July 13, 2022
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
