Clarifying Confusion in Medical Promotion/A Triple Screen Volume 4 - Issue 3

Joel Snell*

• Kirkwood College, Cedar Rapids, Lowa, USA

Received:April 26, 2022;   Published: May 05, 2022

Corresponding author: Joel Snell, Kirkwood College, Cedar Rapids, Lowa, USA

DOI: 10.32474/JCCM.2022.04.000189

Abstract PDF

The author will discuss how one can clarify confusion and contradiction in medical advertisements in the social media. From this strategy, one can more clearly understand accuracy and can do so more efficiently. Most commercials are usually false, near false, or rarely valid, or invalid.

There are three stages that can separate information derived with data that is randomly drawn, ratio oriented, and double blind, sufficiently clarified to dismantle the mysticism of disparity. From this the stage one can help with the necessary comparisons. The stages include

a) Acceptable

b) Hypothetical

c) Unacceptable

Acceptable

From adjusted numbers, chi square to multiple regressions, statistical tests are used. If there is an error, it should be noted. Research is at times is compromised because of lack of data. This may include cross sectional information and or double blindexperimental/ control comparisons. [1,2] note the difficulty of gaining accuracy. As a spoof, [3] was one of the first to demystify the area. He noted numerous tricks to mislead the researcher or consumer. Thus, replication is helpful in clarifying mistakes intended or accidental. Most medical studies are unfortunately thought to be accurate in the commercial arena by consumers. Replication is necessary to catch falsehoods. When scientific information is presented, it is usually followed by name, research journal and outcomes including sample size and test used in the wider commercial world, ACCEPTABLE is generally sparse. One may read “results have not been verified.” That means that nothing was studied. Thus, there is nothing from nothing.

Hypothetical

One is truly lost. Information presented is misleading, meandering, subtle, contradictory, confusing, inappropriate, and a host of other problems. To make matters worse, it may be salient. It is a blizzard of misinformation. Rarely is a presentation accurate. In the social media, the general statement is in small font or print and indicates that the above medication may be valid. There are numerous ways to cloud the finding. Small font is used along with numerous physical distortions in the picture. A plethora of nonsense may be used in the bottom font. Small print may be so small that it is not legible.

Unacceptable

In this instance no comparisons are made. Numbers as well as vague promotions are rampant. In many ways, the information is anecdotal and lost in the clouds. If the data may be more abundant, it might easier to dismiss. The researcher is best in terms of finding accuracy and efficiency to delete and block most information. The advertisement is written and created to misinform. Thus, this author maintains that most information in most commercial areas, is meant to be slightly valid, but is probably false. It would appear in this promotion that our surrounding information is more allusion than what is thought to be reality.

Research is best used when the assumption is that one lives in a whirlwind of misleading commercial information. Most presentations provided are false. Commercials are not education or instruction. However, not all is lost. There are a few commercials that provide the necessary information and have been tested.

1. Latham Sandra (2018) Worst Commercials of All time. Cheapism.com.
2. Omdal Diane (2020) Half Truth and Medical Advantages Commercials. Forbes.
3. Huff Darrell (1954) Statistics How to Lie with Statistics. Norton, New York, USA pp. 1-142.