Verified by Metafact: Recent Episodes
Ben McNeil
We take a specific question or topic in health and science chosen by members. This podcast is a synthesis of the facts from hundreds of experts.
metafact.substack.com
Hello everyone,
Fuelled by celebrity, Intermittent Fasting is creating a big buzz in dieting. From better weight-loss to anti-cancer claims to extending life, there's no shortage of bloggers, products, and companies looking to exploit the hype. That’s where Metafact comes in. We sourced 30 independent experts on fasting, cell biology, and endocrinology to help you separate the facts from the hype.
Today I’ve posted a 18-minute audio version of our Member Review of Intermittent Fasting for all Verified digest subscribers to listen to. It covers the origin, basics and whether the science matches the hype. Here’s what we found…
Intermittent Fasting Takeaways:
Intermittent fasting is as effective for weight-loss than other diets.
It may be easier for some to maintain - others not. There is no one-size-fits all weight loss approach.
Most studies have only been done on animals. No human evidence exists that fasting promotes autophagy and extends life.
The general hype doesn't match the science - more human studies needed. So don't believe the celebrities and wellness gurus just yet.
Don’t start if you're pregnant or breastfeeding. Always speak to your healthcare professional when changing your diet.
The Intermittent Fasting Experiment
When we published our member review on Intermittent Fasting, a number of people contacted me saying they are giving it a try (mostly the 16:8 schedule). Although we found more hype than science on the majority of health claims (like killing cancer and reversing aging), experts did verify that Intermittent Fasting is as effective for weight loss as other diets, while potentially being easier to manage than other diets.
I’ve never dieted before but after the excess of the summer holiday period, I was curious so I started Intermittent Fasting on January 15th as an experiment. So what happened?
In general, I didn’t have an insatiable urge to eat by 11am - but I did see a big increase in the number of morning espressos to distract myself from the hunger. However, my ability to keep the fasting schedule of 16hrs (8pm to 12pm next day)…become intermittent at best. Why?
The biggest problem was my chaotic work-life schedule with young kids. What happens when my partner or kids come home late (after 8pm) - should I eat before they arrive? No, I’m not going to do that... And what happens when you go out with friends for dinner and the only dinner reservation is 8:30pm?
So the experiment had to end - schedules don’t work for me..If anyone has their own experience/insights, let me know in the comments below.
May the facts be with you!
Ben McNeil, Founder Metafact
Is organic food worth it?
March Metafact Review
Exclusive reviews for our fact-loving members.
Each month we investigate a topic voted by members by asking the world's top experts to review the evidence. Reviews are what you need to know. Read all the reviews here.
We gathered more than 20 of the world’s top researchers in organic agriculture, food science, and plant biology to share the facts about Organic Food. Is organic food healthier? Is it safer to eat or better for the environment? This review gives you the latest science-backed intelligence you need to know for your next trip to the grocery store.
If you enjoyed this edition of Verified, consider clicking the little heart (to give it a “like”), and sharing it with a friend where they can sign-up here:
Interested in becoming a Metafact member to get more access- go here.
All newsletter content subject to our Terms and Privacy policies
Get full access to Verified by Metafact at metafact.substack.com/subscribe
Hello everyone,
Is human intelligence fixed? Is IQ a good way to measure intelligence? Do brain games work? Do our parents determine our intelligence or is the environment important? These are some of the core questions we investigated recently in our review on Human Intelligence synthesizing answers from over 30 of the world’s top researchers and experts in neuroscience, psychology, and education.
Metafact Reviews in audio: Each month, members get to vote on a topic for us to investigate with the world’s experts. We have upcoming member reviews planned for ‘Organic Food’, ‘Turmeric’, ‘Vitamin C’ and ‘Regenerative Farming’. Although members have full access to all our written reviews here, to make it easier - I will record an audio version of each review within this digest for when you’re traveling, ironing or just like listening to audio more than text (or enjoy a very Australian accent).
Audio Episodes are published in Verified: This week I’ve produced an audio version of our Human Intelligence review that you can listen above or any podcast app. Although the audio version can’t give you the full picture of the written review, it’s the first of many audio translations and they will be published in this digest each week. So share this post to your friends and colleagues where they can sign up here:
Human Intelligence Takeaways:
Genes play a big role in determining your intelligence - from 50-80% in the latter part of your life.
But genes aren't determinative. Education and the environment are still critical for children.
IQ tests are one way to measure intelligence. In general, they're fairly accurate at predicting certain outcomes like grades and general success in life.
Brain games don't boost your intelligence, they just make you better at the tasks in the app.
Creativity declines from middle age(~44). But your general knowledge and vocabulary will likely increase over your life.
Emotional intelligence is important. Difficult to test for but certain people are better at reading others' emotions.
I hope you enjoy this Metafact audio review. You can now make comments at the bottom each post (I’m told)…
May the facts be with you!
Ben McNeil, Founder Metafact
February Metafact Review:
How to get better sleep?
Exclusive reviews for our fact-loving members.
Each month we investigate a topic voted by members by asking the world's top experts to review the evidence. Reviews are what you need to know. Read all the reviews here.
We gathered more than 50 of the world’s top researchers in neuroscience and sleep research to share the facts about insomnia and ways to get better sleep. From finding out about the optimal sleep environment, using sleeping pills, diet, therapies or having a night-cap, this review gives you the latest science-backed intelligence you need to know to get better sleep.
If you enjoyed this edition of Verified, consider clicking the little heart (to give it a “like”), and sharing it with a friend where they can sign-up here:
Interested in becoming a Metafact member to get more access- go here.
All newsletter content subject to our Terms and Privacy policies
Get full access to Verified by Metafact at metafact.substack.com/subscribe
Hello everyone,
Each month Metafact members vote on a topic for us to investigate with the world’s top experts (remember to vote here). We call these Metafact Reviews - and they are science-powered guides giving you the state of knowledge today on key topics.
One of our recent reviews was on Probiotics - which has become a huge $48billion industry with nearly 4million Americans using probiotics regularly. You can see its impact every visit we make to the grocery store with hundreds of probiotic fortified products from milk, yogurts to kombucha drinks. All these probiotic products and supplements try and lure you into believing the science behind them is solid. Are they?
We wanted to examine these claims, so we asked over 30 top gastroenterologists, microbiome and medical experts to share the facts. Today I wanted to share some of the key findings for everyone in both written form and in audio format (above).
As someone who has purchased probiotic yogurt in the past, the key things I learned from our review:
Probiotics are safe but the evidence is weak on the benefits for healthy people, expectant mothers, and infants
You don’t need probiotics to have a healthy gut, just eat lots of fiber (fruits, vegetable, whole-grains) and your microbiome will flourish
So if you don’t have a digestive condition, don’t waste your money on kombucha or Probiotic Yoghurt - I sure won’t anymore. Instead use the savings to buy more fruits, vegetables, and fibrous foods - or maybe you’d like to use some of the savings to become a Metafact member so we can examine more topics important to you :)
Enjoy our probiotics review and always remember…
May the facts be with you!
Ben McNeil
Founder, Metafact
The ‘Magic’ Yoghurt
For hundreds of years, people have been consuming foods that are supposed to promote good digestive health, but the modern science around probiotics is typically traced back to a guy named Élie Metchnikoff. An immunologist and Nobel laureate, Metchnikoff theorized in the early 1900s that a person’s health could be improved by introducing good bacteria to the gut’s microbiome via yogurt. His ideas languished for a time, but they began to gain steam in the 1990s, when the modern probiotics industry was born.
As a 2013 article in the journal Frontiers in Public Health recalled, “Metchnikoff’s concepts laid the foundation” for the science, but that same article notes that Metchnikoff’s work has spawned plenty of fringe medical theories about the role the gut plays in any number of ailments, both real and imagined.
CONSENSUS
Do probiotics make it past the stomach?
100% Affirmative via 5 experts
In order for probiotics to be most beneficial, they must be able to make it to the gastrointestinal tract. There are two related questions we needed to verify. The first: Do probiotics actually make it past the stomach? Some experts have cast doubt as to whether the bacteria in probiotics supplements can survive the acids found in the stomach.
The second question? If they do make it to the intestines, do probiotics organisms spend any meaningful amount of time there?
Let’s start with the first question. All of our experts agreed that probiotics do make it past the stomach. But the time of day when you take the probiotic can help in determining how much of the bacteria navigates all the way through your digestive tract. “Although the pH of the gut is generally considered to be highly acidic (i.e., pH<3.5-5), studies have shown that following a meal, the pH of the stomach can rise to a range of 4.0 – 6.0,” noted Case Western Reserve University professor Mahmoud Ghannoum. “Approximately two hours after eating, the pH then returns to pre-ingestion levels.” What does that mean? “This indicates that taking your probiotic after a meal makes sense since the acidity will decrease.”
So probiotics microorganisms do make it to the gut, but do they stay there for very long? Highly unlikely. “Actually, it is quite difficult to get new strains to establish in a healthy bacterial gut community,” wrote Technical University of Denmark professor Tine Licht. “Which is a good thing because it means that the healthy community is robust and difficult to alter.” Indeed!
How long can you expect the probiotics to remain in your gut? Dr. Ashok Kumar Pattanaik’s research found “that the probiotic-effects disappears within a fortnight of its withdrawal from the diet.” The most common bacteria found in probiotics are lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, and Philippe Langella, an expert from Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, estimated that they “could persist in the gut between 2-3 days for lactobacilli and 5-7 days for bifidobacteria.”
That’s not to say there aren’t specific cases where probiotics could colonize the gut for a longer period. Toni Gabaldon, an expert from the Institute for Research in Biomedicine in Barcelona, explained that, in cases where there's "already low diversity or an unbalanced ecosystem," the probiotic has a better chance to "colonize the niche." For example, a patient could experience lower bacteria diversity after taking antibiotics. Which leads us to our next set of questions...
CONSENSUS
Should healthy people take probiotics daily?
50% Uncertain from 13 experts
What if you have a pretty normal digestive system with digestive issues. Should you take probiotics? Is it safe to take them?
Most of our experts agreed that, at worst, probiotics are mostly harmless and will pass through you without any negative effects. Hannah Wardill, the expert from University of Adelaide, pointed out two studies regarding this subject. The first, from the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition “reported higher levels of ‘good bacteria’ in the participants' guts, but this was not associated with any tangible health benefit.” In fact, as soon as the participants stopped taking their probiotics, the "beneficial" effects on the microbiome vanished.
The second study, published in Cell, found that healthy people who are given probiotics actually see their gut bacteria suffer. “Again not surprising,” wrote Wardill. “Often probiotics are recommended to people after they have antibiotics to help restore their gut flora, but this study actually showed that probiotics slowed down or delayed restoration of their gut bacteria!” The researchers found that it’s actually more beneficial to administer a fecal transplant of healthy stool (ideally taken from the patient prior to the antibiotics regiment).
Mansel William Griffiths, an expert from the University of Guelph, noted that several probiotics studies with pigs showed positive health effects, but other experts wondered why you’d want to introduce new microorganisms into a healthy ecosystem. “As long as the host is already healthy and the gut microbiota is already in a homeostatic state, there's no need as such to introduce a foreign bacterium (even if it has been found to be beneficial for some people) into your already healthy gut,” wrote Ravinder Nagpal, a research fellow at Wake Forest School of Medicine.
Several of our experts pointed out that, whatever your position is on probiotics, they can’t serve as a stand-in for a healthy lifestyle. “Taking probiotics without addressing lifestyles (e.g. stress, exercise, sleep) issues is not enough,” wrote Case Western Reserve University’s Mahmoud Ghannoum. “Thus, I recommend that you address these issues and eat a nutritionally balanced diet that is low glycemic, rich in fiber, and low in sugar.”
QUICK ANSWERS
Are probiotics harmless? Yes for the vast majority.
Are probiotics necessary for a healthy microbiome? No.
Is a high-fibre diet good for the microbiome? Absolutely.
Do probiotics affect mental health? Hard to say, but unlikely.
Are probiotics effective in the treatment of pouchitis? It seems likely.
Do probiotics help mothers and their babies?
Unlikely writes Candice Quinn, an expert from the University of British Columbia in Gastroenterology
While probiotics are a multi billion-dollar industry, there is little evidence to show that supplementing infants provides any health benefits. We conducted an observational study where 35 of 86 participating mothers self-administered probiotics during breastfeeding, as well as directly to their infants. The primary objective was to determine if probiotic exposure influenced the infants’ fecal microbiome with the secondary objective to assess associated changes to the mothers’ breast milk immunity and infant health.
Analysis of infant fecal microbiome throughout the first 6 months of life revealed that probiotics were associated with higher abundances of Bifidobacterium at week 1 only. Short-chain fatty acid production and predicted metagenomic functions of the microbial communities were not altered.
While probiotics did not alter breast milk immune markers, fecal sIgA responses were higher among probiotic supplemented infants. Surprisingly, this was not associated with better health outcomes, as the probiotic cohort had higher incidences of mucosal-associated illnesses as toddlers. This retrospective clinical comparison suggests that probiotic exposure during infancy has limited effects on gut microbial composition yet is associated with increased infection later in life.
These correlative findings caution against probiotic supplementation during infancy until rigorous controlled follow-up studies determining their safety and efficacy have occurred.
REVIEW TAKEAWAYS
Probiotics companies are routinely fined by consumer protection agencies, so be wary of any marketing claims they make.
Regardless of whether they help you, taking probiotics probably won't harm you.
Different probiotics companies use different strains of bacteria, so it's difficult for science to deliver a verdict on whether they carry many benefits.
There's some evidence to suggest probiotics help in the treatment of certain ailments, but plenty of experts express doubt on this subject.
Probiotics will never replace a good diet that consists of plenty of fruits and vegetables.
Members can read much more from the entire Metafact review here.
If you enjoyed this edition of Verified, consider clicking the little heart (to give it a “like”), sharing it with a friend where they can sign-up to this digest here:
Remember if you want to ask a question for the next episode (send it to ben@metafact.io).
Follow us on: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn
All newsletter content subject to our Terms and Privacy policies
Get full access to Verified by Metafact at metafact.substack.com/subscribe
Hello everyone,
Each month Metafact members vote on a topic for us to investigate with the world’s top experts. We call these Metafact Reviews - and they are science-powered guides giving you the state of knowledge today.
Our launch review last month was on Vaccines - a topic plagued with internet misinformation and weaponized by technology companies. Today we have opened up our findings for everyone to read and share. From questions on supposed toxic ingredients to autism, herd immunity and the HPV vaccine - we want everyone to learn from what we’ve found with over 50 of the world’s top immunologists and public health experts.
To help our members and supporters, I have started recording an audio version of each review for those who prefer it, or want to listen while traveling, ironing or in the shower… If you don’t want to miss a recording, you can subscribe to the Fact Check it! podcast on Spotify, Anchor or Google.
Let me know what you think in the comments below and by all means share this to friends, family members and colleagues interested in signing up to the Verified newsletter:
Enjoy our vaccines review and always remember…
May the facts be with you!
Ben McNeil
Founder, Metafact
The most damaging medical hoax of the 20th Century
In 1998, the medical journal The Lancet published an article titled “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.” Authored by British doctor Andrew Wakefield and 11 coauthors, the article purported to find evidence that the MMR vaccine -- which targets measles, mumps, and rubella -- caused autism and gastrointestinal disorders.
In the years following the publication, hundreds of studies demonstrated no link between vaccines and autism, and scientists harshly criticized Wakefield’s methodology and his failure to disclose conflicts of interests. In 2010, The Lancet fully retracted the original article and Wakefield was stripped of his medical license that same year.
But by then, the damage was already done. Many parents, fearful of causing their children to develop autism, refrained from vaccinating them, and we’re now treated to regular headlines of measles and mumps outbreaks among children. The journal The Annals of Pharmacotherapy characterized Wakefield’s study as "perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the 20th Century.” Despite the paper’s retraction, vaccine misinformation continues to proliferate and social media and the “anti-vaccination” movement are showing no signs of slowing down.
Because of the wide dispersal of misinformation, it’s important to hear directly from the experts about the importance of vaccinations. That’s where Metafact comes in. In this week’s review, we hear from a range of scientists across the globe about vaccine side effects, supposed toxic ingredients, and the safety of herd immunity. Stay tuned...
Of milkmaids, kings and Edward Jenner
In 1796, London was gripped with fear. One in five of deaths came from smallpox, a contagious air-borne virus that would cripple the immune system. Smallpox dates back thousands of years. The mummy of Egyptian King Ramses V, who died in 1157BC, was found to bear the trademark rash. It kills approximately one in three of those infected. Today, smallpox is famous for being the first disease that humankind eradicated from the planet. This immense achievement came about from a serendipitous discovery in country England.
In the 18th century, something curious happened to milkmaids in the English countryside. They would never get smallpox. In 1762 a milkmaid gloated to a curious boy that “I shall never have smallpox for I have had cowpox [and] I shall never have an ugly pockmarked face”. The teenager was Edward Jenner who later became a doctor.
In 1796, Jenner tested the milkmaid idea. He infected eight-year old James Phipps with cowpox using pus gathered from the blisters of Sarah Nelmes, a milkmaid. He then exposed Phipps to smallpox and noticed he didn’t contract the virus. Once vaccinated, a patient develops antibodies that make them immune to not only cowpox but smallpox too. The Latin word for cow is vaccus while cowpox is vaccini; so Jenner coined the term ‘vaccination’ to describe the technique.
In the 1870s, French scientist Louis Pasteur developed a similar method to protect people against Rabies and Anthrax. In honor of Jenner, he called the preparation a ‘vaccine’. (Some dispute the Milkmaid story and claim John Fewster should take more of the credit).
Discovering vaccines was huge — getting vaccines to millions was the next challenge. In 1967 smallpox was still killing up to 2million people in the poorer parts of the world. The World Health Organisation invested US$100million over the next 10 years. In 1977, the last person to ever get smallpox was Ali Maow Maalin, a Somalian hospital cook. Smallpox was the first, but now vaccines protect many diseases.
The Consensus
Do vaccines cause Autism?
Despite the retraction of the Lancet article, there’s still widespread suspicion that vaccines actually do cause autism. So what evidence do we have that they don’t?
Our experts were unambiguous in their rulings on this topic. “There is absolutely no single shred of evidence that vaccination, of any type, causes autism,” wrote Mark Pepys, professor of medicine at University College London. “There is also absolutely no shred of scientific evidence about either vaccination or autism suggesting any possible mechanism that could be responsible for such an association.”
One claim made by the anti-vaccination is that the preservative thimerosal, which was once used in some vaccines, contained mercury and led to adverse effects, including autism. But studies couldn’t find any evidence of this, and thimerosal was later removed from most vaccines out of an abundance of caution. “The rates of autism have risen in the US after the thimerosal was removed, further supporting the safety of the vaccines,” noted University of Pittsburgh associate professor Richard Zimmerman. “Something else must be causing autism if children are getting it despite thimerosal’s removal.”
Indeed, scientists like Dwight German, a professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, have engaged in animal studies to determine whether such effects exist. “We recently studied the brains and behavior of non-human primates, exposed to the same human childhood vaccination schedules to determine whether neurodevelopmental changes occur,” he wrote. “... We found that the vaccines/thimerosal caused no behavioral or brain abnormalities that are characteristic of ASD.” How could a vaccine not cause harm if it contains mercury? As Amelia Warren, an expert at Bond University, explained, “the amount of organic mercury found in a single serving of tuna (e.g., one can) is equivalent to the amount found in a single vaccination shot.”
Are there toxic ingredients in vaccines?
We’ve established that mercury doesn’t pose a threat. But what about the other ingredients in vaccines? Are any of them toxic?
All of our experts agreed they’re not toxic. While it’s common for vaccines to cause some inflammation and soreness, this doesn’t mean they’re toxic, and most governments closely monitor the industry to detect any potential problems early on. “There are surveillance systems in place to monitor vaccine-related adverse events,” wrote Kate Zinszer, an expert from Université de Montréal. “The risks of adverse events greatly outweigh the benefits vaccines provide at the individual and community level. To ensure the safety of vaccines, federal agencies in Canada, the US and worldwide routinely monitor and conduct research to examine any new evidence that would suggest possible problems with the safety of vaccines.”
Do I need to get vaccinated if everyone else is?
When reading about vaccines, you’ll likely come across the term “herd immunity,” which describes the phenomena by which diseases have a difficult time spreading in populations where vaccine rates are high. In this scenario, an unvaccinated individual would be unlikely to contract a disease because everybody they come into contact with is immune to it.
This has led some to wonder whether it’s worth getting vaccinated if you live in an area with vaccination rates above 90%.
All of Metafact’s experts agreed that you should still be vaccinated. For one, if everyone adopts the position that herd immunity will protect them, then that would naturally lead to less herd immunity. “If an individual decides that he/she, or their child is protected because of the 'firewall' and therefore has such a low chance of getting the infection that they decide not to bother getting the vaccine, then they do not contribute to the firewall, creating a small crack in it,” wrote Michael Mina, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Harvard. “At a population level, it is likely that their decision was either informed by or will inform other people's decisions to not vaccinate for the same reason. And very quickly, the firewall will contain many cracks because many people think that there is no need.”
What’s more, a vaccination rate is just a rough generalization and doesn’t really reflect your chances of encountering an unvaccinated individual. “The estimate is representative of a closed population where susceptible individuals are scattered evenly throughout,” wrote cancer epidemiologist Michaela Hall. “In practice, the population is not closed, many people travel to and from other countries without high MMR vaccine coverage rates and additionally, unvaccinated individuals are often concentrated within local areas or groups, meaning that herd protection may be significantly reduced in some areas.”
Also, if a disease is highly contagious, then a much higher vaccination rate is required to reach herd immunity. “In a totally susceptible population, one person infected with measles on average infects 20 other persons,” explained Cornelis H van Werkhoven, an expert at University Medical Center Utrecht. “The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that, in order to prevent spread of measles in the population, over 95% of the population should be vaccinated.”
Is the HPV vaccine safe?
The HPV vaccine, which vaccinates one from certain strains of the human papilloma virus, was introduced to the population in 2006, and it’s recommended by the World Health Organization because of its ability to prevent cervical cancer.
Given its relative newness, some Metafact users have wondered if it’s safe.
All the Metafact experts agreed that it was. “Over 80 million doses of the vaccine have been administered around the world and safety has been closely monitored by a number of organisations,” explained University College London cancer researcher Jo Waller. “All have concluded that the HPV vaccine is safe.” Gregory D. Zimet, a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine pointed to a study comparing unvaccinated females to vaccinated females that “failed to find any differences in rates of multiple sclerosis or other demyelinating diseases.”
Zimet noted that, though it’s impossible to eliminate all risks pertaining to vaccines, they’re still overwhelmingly safe. “HPV vaccination is not 100% safe, but no activity in life is 100% safe, even getting out of bed in the morning. However, we can say with 100% certainty that getting vaccinated against HPV is safer than not getting vaccinated and that vaccinating a child against HPV is safer, for example, than having a child ride in a car wearing a seatbelt.”
Quick Answers
Do multiple vaccines overload the immune system? Extremely unlikely. As one of our experts put it, "a baby could theoretically respond to 10,000 vaccines at once."
Is a universal flu vaccine possible? Maybe. "There is a theoretical possibility to vaccinate against targets common between strains, using novel immunological approaches."
Is the influenza vaccine effective? Yes. It's not 100% effective, but it significantly reduces your chance of getting the flu.
Does the HPV vaccine increase risk of blood clots? No.
Takeaways
There's no evidence that vaccines cause autism. So don't believe what celebrities tell you.
Sure, vaccines come with risks from adverse reactions, but nearly everything you do has some risk involved. Bottom line: the risks posed by not getting vaccinated are far greater than the risks associated with vaccines.
Herd immunity helps protect you, but don't let it serve as a stand-in for getting vaccinated.
Don't believe anti-science celebrities and activist claims on Facebook or Youtube. Opinion is free, but facts are sacred. Ask Metafact first here.
Throughout their history, vaccines have saved millions of lives. Maybe even your own. So enjoy your life!
Did you enjoy this Metafact Review? There’s a number of ways you can help us do more. Click the like button below and then share this to friends, family, and colleagues so they can subscribe. Or become a member to support us and receive special attention to the questions and topics you care about without bias, ads or click-bait.
Follow us on: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn
All newsletter content subject to our Terms and Privacy policies
Get full access to Verified by Metafact at metafact.substack.com/subscribe
Hello Metafact members and subscribers!
I realise how busy you are and keeping up with all of the new material from us is hard (whether it’s the weekly consensus or monthly reviews) - so I’ve created a podcast called ‘Fact Check it!’ that translates the member content so you can listen when convenient. I probably should really call it ‘Google is not your doctor’!
In the launch episode, I explain the problem and the evolution of our new model to fact-check the internet. You can also read it below. I will start to share future episodes in this digest and will cover a single question or topic we’ve fact-checked with the world’s experts. You can listen and subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, Anchor or Google.
Metafact is funded 100% by our members, who get to choose a topic we investigate in our Monthly Review. This month the vote is close between ‘Intermittent Fasting’ and ‘Sleep’ - so if you haven’t yet voted, please do so here as voting ends soon.
Thanks everyone & may the facts be with you!
Ben McNeil
Founder
From John Oliver on climate science to Dr Google - the evolution of Metafact…
My Story
As a career scientist, I’ve always been aware of the persistence of media misinformation, but I didn’t come to fully understand how it seeps into the public discourse until 2009. That year, I and 25 other climate scientists compiled a report called The Copenhagen Diagnosis; it was a summary of all the peer-reviewed research on the evidence of climate change and the causes behind it. We presented the report during a widely-covered climate meeting attended by President Barack Obama and several other world leaders.
After the event, I noticed a big uptick in the number of interview requests I received from journalists. And while some of these reporters presented the research responsibly, I quickly noticed a disturbing trend in which articles would place my quotes right next to those opposing claims the science of climate change. The problem was those opposing were never an actual climate scientist - they were often someone else.
I remember having to debate the science with a Lord from the British Parliament, who ironically called into question my own scientific credentials. As a scientist, I question everything, including the science of climate change - that’s what I’m trained to do - look for holes and try and win the next Nobel Prize.
Questioning is critical, debate is good - its healthy. But false debates just misinform people. You can always find someone to oppose your position - even someone who doesn’t believe in gravity. Debates makes for entertaining viewing. But it doesn’t help progress the hard facts that everyone should be working off.
I found reporters would often present “both sides” to argument as if they had equal merit - in political or social debates that makes sense as we all have different ways at viewing the world. In science there isn’t a left or right - it’s based around the universal laws of physics that dictate whether something is true. Your feelings or ideology means nothing to what the evidence says.
Given advertising serves as the business model of media, it seemed that reporters and producers were looking for debates and shouting matches to keep the viewer entertained. This early experience for me was immensely disheartening.
Then in 2014 I watched a clip from John Oliver - and it was the most insightful segment I’ve seen on how the media can misrepresent scientific facts so easily. Here’s a clip of his segment called “A statistically representative debate on climate change”.
Beyond the 97% consensus
But it’s not just the 97% of climate scientists that are getting misrepresented in the media. On any topic or question from health to technology, the media often misrepresent the facts either by presenting false debates or what is now more likely, publish click-bait headlines that cherrypick one study. How often have you heard of cancer cures and miracle remedies in the news?
Social media has made it much worse. We now have volumes of pseudoscientific claims spread on Facebook promoting a product or cause or company without any of us knowing whether it’s true. Youtube seems to be a big growing channel for misinformation. Flat-earthers (those who believe the earth if flat) have grown from the ‘scientific sounding’ clips. Youtube and Facebook are under intense pressure to fix the promotion of anti-vaccination content. But science misinformation goes much deeper than climate change, vaccination, and GMOs. Every day, wellness gurus, influencers and companies try and use science as a signal of trust to buy something.
All of us rely on external messengers to inform us to make better decisions in our lives - but the messengers are fundamentally broken. A Google search, the traditional media, social media - there is no way for us to know what links, posts or answers to trust? It’s impossible.
Metafact
So how can we better statistically represent the facts on any topic or question? John Oliver gave me the start of an idea in 2014 - but I didn’t know it just yet.
By 2016, misinformation was reaching a serious scale - so enough was enough. I started to form the first inklings for how to combat this misinformation crisis. It seemed clear that we needed an internet clearinghouse for fact-checking, one that was scalable and valued expertise. I started thinking about how we could begin using a more scientific approach to fact-checking, starting in health.
At the time, I was helping to run a platform called Thinkable, which aimed to help scientists raise money online to fund their research. When we were building Thinkable, we’d been able to manually verify thousands of scientists from across the world in hundreds of different fields of study. We had the idea to take a disputed question -- for example: “Do vaccines cause autism?” -- and then invite our verified scientists who are most qualified to answer it - immunologists and public health experts.
Would the experts actually respond? Or would they just delete the email and move on with their lives? There was only one way to find out. We quickly developed a question and answer tool that would allow a scientist to easily log in and contribute. We purposefully only asked questions with true/false answers -- that way so we could establish a “consensus” -- and the expert could share a quick answer with uncertainty or contribute a longer detailed response.
To our surprise, not only did we receive overwhelming participation, but the majority of the scientists who logged into the platform stuck around long enough to leave a detailed response to the query, often citing peer-reviewed research in their answer. After we’d collected about 200-odd answers, it became clear that our experiment had potential. There was a real desire within the scientific community to answer the public’s queries on science-related issues.
Since then, we’ve been continually building the Metafact platform, helped by over 300 foundation members who pledged to our Kickstarter in March of this year. We’ve now designed the infrastructure so we can process questions and quickly distribute them to the experts we think are best qualified to answer them. To date, we’ve grown our expert database and have published over 2,500 experts answers from questions ranging from whether probiotics have any health benefits to whether eating burnt toast is a cancer risk?
All the nuances from trusted experts
In general, fact-checking hasn’t evolved. It’s been obsessed about checking politicians statements and not enough the most important question in our lives relating to health, products, environment and technology. So we take a more scalable scientific approach by asking relevant experts in their field to review the facts.
For the most important questions in our lives around health, life and society - we need a layer of trust for when someone shares an answer or perspective, that they know what they are talking about - that they have credentials or experience that gives them unique insights into the question or topic we want to learn.
But the wonderful thing about science is that it is fundamentally a collective process. One person does not control the field of knowledge. Isaac Newton famously said “I only see by standing on the shoulders of giants”. What he means, is that knowledge only progresses as a community. A fact is never discovered by one person or one discovery. The truth only comes about from a long process of attrition. Ideas become knowledge only when many independent people confirm and replicate the findings.
Facts are the purest possible example of survival of the fittest. Darwin himself laid the framework of evolution from a biological perspective, but ideas also follow this evolutionary process. Yet the factual infrastructure humanity has produced lies dormant - hidden from everyone. So we rely on what we have to search for answers - Dr Google.
Google is not your doctor
Some questions are simply too important to ask the internet. Have you ever wondered why Google always gives you millions of results for a query? There is no question ever posed by any human that Google can not answer - or give 0 search results. I would love to see a 0 search result on Google. But that is the problem with Google - because there are millions of questions that can’t be answered - at least not truthfully or with evidence. The reason we get sent millions of links for any question is that Google has become a gamed biased system - people have worked it out to ensure they get your attention for their blog or product or cause.
Google is not your doctor and that article or instagram post you read about turmeric is written by an influencer and is getting paid by Amazon to sell turmeric supplements. You would never know that.
What’s both amazing and terrifying is that anyone can become anything on the internet. Do you know the story of the Shed restaurant in London? The Shed became the number one rated restaurant on Trip Advisor in 2017. The problem was the restaurant was entirely made-up. It didn’t exist. The owner wrote fake-reviews leveraging a click-bait media to make that happen.
When you incentivize clicks and attention via a democratized information market called the internet, then is it surprising that the fake economy is now thriving and we can’t judge what is true anymore?
All of us have no idea what source or article to trust. Are they lying, selling or actually telling us the truth. That’s why the internet needs a fact-checker that is accurate, trustworthy and scalable - and what we’ve started to build at metafact.io is the first step towards that goal. We have thousands of scientists, doctors and experts - all verified and ready to fact-check your questions.
A different podcast
My goal here is to create a slower but more trusted knowledge engine when you really need to know the truth. To expand the scientific method and apply it to those important questions that the internet cannot truthfully answer for us. We will take direct questions from anyone relating to anything in health, food, medicine and science. It can be specific or broad.
Please ask binary questions only (True/False). We will invite actual experts who are working on that topic to share the facts. But instead of inviting just one expert to answer - we invite many independent experts. We then share the evidence based on the scientific consensus so you learn all the perspectives from a community of experts who work on the topic.
Sometimes there are big debates within the scientific community and other times there is not. We want to give you a better way to source trusted knowledge so you can make smarter and healthier decisions in your life.
Each podcast will end with a takeaway - this is not based on our opinion but will be entirely based on the prevailing consensus among the experts. If 7/10 experts agree that cucumbers cause cancer - then we will share this. However the 3/10 is also important - and there perspective is not neglected in our summaries. All expert answers are open and published for you to read. If I start deviating on my own beyond the facts from the experts - you can tell me - it’s all transparent.
No one knows everything - but on any question in the world there is someone (sometimes many) who knows the truth. Whether it’s an obscure rare disease or a new popular diet - the beauty of humanity is there are people who dedicate their professional lives to researching that single topic. It’s my job to find the most credible independent trustworthy experts to help us share the truth.
Metafact is about facts, not clicks
So is Metafact the sole arbtrar of truth? Of course not, but we can say that for the more important questions in our lives, our answers are more credible and truthful than anything else out there.
We aren’t looking for the most listeners or the most laughs. We don’t engage comedians or do stunts to entertain. We don’t do click-bait to try and lure you into listening. In a world where clicks are more important than facts, we want to become a refuge for those who value trusted knowledge.
One episode at a time, we want to build back trust and truth by creating something unique. This podcast is your subscription to the truth as verified by science.
You may think your smart - but we are all susceptible to a well-written lie. We need a better way to question everything. But not only that - a better way to extract the truth. Only then, will we be able to make the best decisions for lives, businesses and communities.
Thanks for listening and may the facts be with you!
Ben
Thanks for signing up to Verified, the Metafact intelligence digest. If you think your friends and colleagues would be interested to learn the facts from thousands of experts:
Follow us on: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn
Get full access to Verified by Metafact at metafact.substack.com/subscribe