I recently viewed a social media post that was so replete with misinformation, that it made my head spin. It was from an individual (not a physician) who was pontificating about how statin therapy was harmful and had no use in medicine. He did have a background in a field that involves musculoskeletal wellness, but the nature of his expertise was far from the subject about which he dogmatically spoke. This caused me to ponder this issue more broadly. In an age of easy access to information, the spread of medical misinformation has become an increasingly pervasive issue. Many individuals, perhaps with a profession tangential to management of medical illness, or just individuals “who have done their own research” may hold strong convictions about the efficacy of certain treatments—like the rejection of statins, despite overwhelming evidence supporting their benefit in reducing cardiovascular risk. These individuals often speak with an air of certainty, presenting themselves as experts on topics far outside their specific scope of training.

This phenomenon, where individuals without formal expertise promote their personal beliefs as if they are irrefutable truths, is not only a source of frustration for those with legitimate knowledge, but also dangerous for the public. It can foster confusion, harm, and mislead those seeking reliable, evidence-based healthcare advice. In this post, we will explore the psychological underpinnings of this dogmatic mindset, examine the role of disinformation, and underscore why credentials and experience matter when it comes to health and wellness.

The Psychology of Dogmatism

Psychologists have long been interested in the nature of dogmatism—an unwavering belief in one’s views, despite contrary evidence. According to Rokeach (1960), dogmatic individuals are highly resistant to change in their beliefs, which they consider absolute and unquestionable. The phenomenon is linked to a need for cognitive closure, a psychological desire for certainty and decisiveness in thinking. This is especially pronounced in domains like health and wellness, where individuals may seek to simplify complex medical topics to fit their own worldview.

A study by Clarke et al. (2014) found that dogmatic people often reject conflicting evidence because it creates discomfort. In this context, when an allied health professional specializing in musculoskeletal health, for instance, dismisses statins despite extensive evidence showing their life-saving benefits, it is often because acknowledging the complexity of medical science would challenge their own entrenched beliefs. Instead, they lean into simplifications, becoming more vocal in their certainty, regardless of their expertise or understanding of the broader body of evidence.

Disinformation: Intentions and Nefarious Influences

While some individuals may honestly believe they are helping others by promoting their views, others are more motivated by personal interests—be they financial, ideological, or political, or just to receive more “likes” on social media. The spread of health disinformation is often driven by a mix of unqualified individuals selling products or services, or by individuals with ideological agendas that reject mainstream medical consensus.

According to Lewandowsky, Ecker, and Cook (2017), disinformation is most effective when it plays on emotional triggers and confirmation bias. In the case of statins, for example, the narrative that “big pharma is pushing dangerous drugs” can be very alluring to people who are already skeptical of the medical establishment. For someone with no expertise in cardiology, this narrative is easy to latch onto, and the allure of challenging perceived authority figures makes their message more appealing.

When such figures speak dogmatically, they manipulate others into trusting them over professionals, leading to potentially harmful consequences, such as people foregoing statins or other evidence-based treatments. This is especially pernicious when the individuals promoting disinformation are well-spoken and confident, leveraging their charisma to sway public opinion.

The Nuance of Expert Knowledge

Experts in any field, particularly in healthcare, understand that knowledge is complex and evolving. Medical professionals, from doctors to dietitians, engage with continuous learning and critical thinking, taking into account the nuances of individual health and the broader context of scientific discovery. Statins, for instance, are not a one-size-fits-all solution. For some patients, alternative approaches may be appropriate, and for others, statins may be life-saving. A nuanced approach considers the individual’s overall health, history, and needs—rather than offering blanket statements.

In contrast, the non-expert who speaks dogmatically often ignores these complexities. Their message is reduced to simple slogans: “Statins are bad!” or “You don’t need them, try this herb!” This oversimplification does not only lack scientific merit—it actively harms the conversation by offering false certainty in an area where uncertainty is the norm.

A study by Gervais et al. (2017) highlights the importance of expertise in framing health messages. They found that lay individuals were far more likely to overestimate the certainty of their opinions, while experts were more likely to present information in a way that acknowledged uncertainty and context. The more nuanced and evidence-based approach is often less palatable in the age of soundbites, but it is ultimately more beneficial to public health.

Why Credentials and Experience Matter

Someone, for example, may be highly trained in the manipulation of the spine to address musculoskeletal issues. However, they are not trained to diagnose or treat systemic conditions like high cholesterol, heart disease, or diabetes. These are areas that require extensive education in physiology, pharmacology, and clinical care—subjects that go far beyond the scope of their training.

Credentials matter because they signify a level of education and expertise that equips individuals to make informed, evidence-based decisions. The role of a licensed physician, trained in internal medicine, family medicine, endocrinology or cardiology, involves years of education and practical experience in understanding complex biological systems, interpreting research, and providing care based on the best available evidence. However well-intentioned, often the pontificators in social media do not have the same training or understanding to offer medical advice on matters like statin therapy.

This difference in training explains why it’s essential to turn to professionals with the appropriate credentials when seeking advice about complex medical issues. It is important to understand that while an individual can help with musculoskeletal issues, they should not be presenting themselves as authorities on drugs that affect the cardiovascular system or other areas outside their expertise.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while it is tempting to trust confident voices that offer simplified solutions to complex health problems, it is essential to remember that dogmatism is not a substitute for expertise. The psychological appeal of certainty can easily overshadow the need for nuance and evidence-based care. Disinformation can be damaging when it undermines the credibility of legitimate experts, and individuals who speak authoritatively on topics they don’t fully understand should be approached with caution.

When it comes to health, knowledge and credentials matter. Medical professionals, who have the proper education and experience, are trained to navigate the complexities of human physiology and evidence-based medicine. It is crucial to rely on their expertise rather than the dogmatic declarations of individuals without the necessary qualifications. This is especially important in a rapidly changing political world which seems to have fostered a disdain for expertise. Always prioritize evidence over opinion, and remember that complexity and uncertainty are hallmarks of genuine medical knowledge.

References

• Clarke, C. E., et al. (2014). The relationship between cognitive closure and dogmatism. Journal of Research in Personality.

• Gervais, S. J., et al. (2017). The role of expertise in health messaging: A meta-analysis. Journal of Health Communication.

• Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the Spread of False Beliefs. Psychological Science in the Public Interest.

• Rokeach, M. (1960). The Open and Closed Mind: Investigations into the Character of Human Belief. Basic Books.