Is 'You're saying something different than before' really a lie? How to avoid misunderstanding the 'updating' of medical information

“Doctor, you didn't say that before.”

I imagine every medical professional has been told that at least once. Every time vaccine recommendations change, social media is flooded with comments like, “It was a lie after all” or “They were hiding it from the start.” Every time that happens, I feel a little frustrated. I feel like we haven't been able to explain the reason for the change very well.

But when you think about it, not just in medical information, there is a clear structural difference between “areas where conspiracy theories easily spread” and “areas where they don't.” Just knowing that makes it much easier to deal with the information that comes your way. Today, I would like to talk about that.

There are places where conspiracy theories cannot enter

This may come as a surprise, but conspiracy theories almost never arise in mathematical proofs.

No one seriously says, “The Pythagorean theorem was actually fabricated by those in power.” Why is that? Because the steps of the proof are all public, and anyone can follow them from the same premises. It is decided not by “who said it,” but solely by “whether the proof holds up.” Authority, money, and politics have nothing to do with correctness.

If we use cooking as an analogy, it is a state where the recipe and instructions are fully disclosed. If you use the same ingredients and follow the same steps, anyone can make the same thing. If there is a mistake, someone can find it and point it out. In such a world, there is almost no room for “hidden truths” to enter.

Of course, there are opaque parts on the “periphery” of science, such as academic relationships and the allocation of research funds. However, the core part—whether a theorem is correct or not—has a relatively open structure. This is why it doesn't mesh well with conspiracy theories.

When the fog gets thick, stories enter

So, what do areas where conspiracy theories easily spread have in common? I think of it as an image of “fog.”

The conditions that make the fog thick can generally be summarized into five points: there is a lot of undisclosed information, the mechanisms are complex and specialized, the conclusions are tentative and easily updated later, interests such as money and power are involved, and it is a theme that stirs strong emotions like life and health.

When these conditions overlap, a story that “someone is intentionally pulling the strings” can look overwhelmingly clearer than an explanation that it is “a pile-up of coincidences” or “many factors intricately intertwined.”

What is important here is that being drawn to conspiracy theories is not a matter of “intelligence.” When people are placed in a situation where information is lacking, anxiety is high, and no reliable explanation can be found, they naturally gravitate toward a “simple story.” That is a very natural human reaction.

The real reason why medical information is 'updated'

In medical topics, what is particularly prone to misunderstanding is the perception that “saying something different than before means they were lying or hiding something.”

But in most of those cases, what is actually happening is that “a tentative conclusion has been refined by the accumulation of data.”

Unlike mathematics, medicine deals with real human beings. Age, underlying conditions, living environment, prevalence of disease, timing of treatment—there are many conditions, and it cannot be fixed to a single answer. When a new infectious disease first appears, the data on hand is limited. Therefore, at first, we have no choice but to start with the “most reasonable recommendation based on the information currently available.”

After that, as research accumulates, the resolution increases. For whom is it effective, how often do side effects occur, and under what conditions do the risks and benefits reverse? These things gradually become visible, and the recommendations are updated.

It is like moving forward with a rough map, and as more information becomes available, the accuracy of the map improves. The map changing is not a sign that we were lying, but a sign that the resolution of the map has increased.

Of course, when an update occurs, if we don't also communicate “what increased to cause the change,” it becomes easy for distrust to arise. That is also a challenge for medical professionals. Even if that is the mechanism, if the way it is communicated is insufficient, the fog will only get thicker.

Three questions to ask when you feel overwhelmed on social media

When I see strong, definitive statements, there are three questions I try asking myself that help me calm down.

First is, "Is it in a form that can be falsified?". Any claim that cannot answer the question, "What evidence would make you admit you are wrong?" is structured to always win. Arguments that cannot be falsified are not discussions; they are closer to faith.

Next is, "Is it close to primary information, and can anyone verify it?". It is very calming to check whether the information is close to its starting point—such as official announcements, research papers, or statistics—rather than "a friend said so" or "I heard it somewhere."

Finally, "Am I filling in the blanks with my imagination?". When there are parts we don't understand, we naturally add a narrative to fill them in. The moment it looks like "details unknown equals hiding something," that is the moment we are filling in the blanks.

And when you still can't decide even after doing all of this, "putting it on hold" is the strongest choice. Holding off is not losing. There is plenty of information that does not require an immediate conclusion.

Conclusion

I would like to summarize what I wanted to convey today into three points.

Conspiracy theories tend to become stronger where a fog of information (non-public, complex, uncertain) overlaps with emotions and interests, rather than based on the quality of the theme itself. The world of mathematical proof has a structure where procedures are public, making the fog thin and making it difficult for conspiracy theories to take root. And in most cases, the updating of medical information is not a "lie," but a very natural process where provisional conclusions are refined.

It is not that there are people who are prone to believing in conspiracy theories, but rather that there are situations where conspiracy theories appear more compelling. If we view it that way, I feel we can be a little kinder and calmer toward information.

Thank you very much for staying with me until the end. I would be happy if today's article serves as a catalyst for you to think about your next steps from tomorrow onwards.

#InformationLiteracy #MedicalInformation #ConspiracyTheories #HowToUseSocialMedia #CertifiedPublicPsychologist