There are some established guidelines on what to do and what not to do. It's definitely not a settled science, but there are certain things to do and not do. So, first of all, try not to mock, try not to get angry, don't tell people they're dumb, because for the most part, people are not dumb. There are some dumb people, of course, but usually somebody who's falling for misinformation, wellness, misinformation online, or some diet or some whatever, whatever the product is, it's because they've just been given some bad information. They're not stupid, they've just been misled. And we've all been there, it can happen to anyone. So, don't scold, don't criticize, don't tell people they're stupid. Be compassionate and be understanding and be kind. There's not enough kind again, this sort of stuff doesn't fly on social media. It's not a space that is developed for those kinds of qualities. But I think that's kind of the first thing: try not to argue. The next thing is to, yes, debunk by all means. You know, the technical term is to administer corrective messaging. So, if you see some kind of baseless claim, yes, by all means, you can highlight why it's wrong. You can say that it's wrong, but you're more importantly, you've got to explain why it's wrong. So, actually break down the mechanics of what's going on. Don't just say, This is bullshit, this person's an idiot. And if you take their advice, you're an idiot too. You actually need to, okay, say this is incorrect. Here's why it's incorrect, here's the evidence, and here's an alternative. You actually have to provide some kind of alternative belief pattern, if you like, belief system. Otherwise, that corrective messaging isn't going to work. But I think there is a bit too much of a dependence on debunking stuff. And when people have referred to me in the past as a wellness pseudoscience debunker, I actually dislike it because it's very reductionist. What I try and do, and what I try and encourage other people to do is to, yes, a little bit of debunking is fine, but explain the mechanics of the con and help people to understand how to make better decisions for themselves. So they're not just dependent on somebody like you to debunk the next bullshit wellness trend. They can actually develop the tools to debunk that stuff for themselves and just make better. It's a cliche, it's a trope, but it's this idea of teaching people to fish rather than giving them a fish. And lastly, it's to encourage more legitimate scientists to do more public-facing science communication. There is this sort of stigma called the Sagan effect after Carl Sagan, who was denied certain awards and accolades because he was considered to be a popular scientist. And at the time, certainly in the 80s and 90s, and it carries on today, there is this stigma that somebody who communicates with the public is somehow a worse scientist. They're not academically as credible. And it's obviously false. And you can do both. And I would encourage real scientists, real experts, to do more science communication because, to quote Shirley Malcolm, if you don't tell your own story, someone else will tell it for you and you may not like how they do it. And that's essentially how we've arrived at this situation where we are today: that scientists and real experts, by refusing to communicate with the public, they've created this huge void that has been very, very quickly filled by fitness influencers, wellness gurus, journalists who write about science but don't really understand it, and the science commodifiers who are more than happy to treat science as a way to expand their brand. And so I would encourage more experts, more scientists to communicate science, given all of these things that I've said.

I really like that concept around pattern recognition: that if you are describing the mechanics of these false claims or problematic narratives, over time, people will start to see that oftentimes they're very similar in how they're done, right? It's almost the same formula many of these grifters tend to use. And so if you can start to spot those, then you become or less reliant on the thousand of them that are going to be spoken next year. You won't have to have someone else go and debunk those. You can see, oh, well, look, this is the same pattern repeating itself over and over again. And

Well, this is probably taken from a combination of many other people who are far smarter than I and trying to learn from those. But it would seem that the best point of contention in an individual conversation with someone like that would be to first understand why they are interested in a particular thing. Where did they come across it? Why do they want to try a particular supplement or a diet? What is intriguing to them about that? They're looking for information. They've heard it somewhere. It sounds convincing. And then we can have a discussion about, well, here's some of the things to know about that. And if they're open to a discussion around that evidence, that can be discussed. And then ultimately, it's still a decision for them to make because oftentimes people still want to try something. And again, it depends on a risk-reward ratio. If it could be something that might be not harmful, but they're going to waste their time and they're dead set on it. You can maybe only help them do it in the safest way possible. But at the same time, you can say, well, here's what we have evidence for. Here's an alternative of what might be a better way to go based on my experience. What would you think about that? And ultimately leave that kind of open question with them on a practical level. And so that would seem to hopefully tick a number of those boxes.

What you've just described there actually is another tip that I would give to the people who are interested in science communication is essentially what you did is rather than just tell them that this is wrong, don't do it. Sometimes it requires a little bit more patience and a little bit more of a sophisticated approach where you just plant the seeds of doubt. So rather than just telling them outright, this is nonsense, don't do it, especially if they're really invested in it. Maybe they're already trying it and they, through some placebo effect, they feel better. You can just introduce the seeds of doubt, explain to them, well, you know, some people have tried it before and think that it works. You know, maybe you can try it. And, you know, here's what the science maybe isn't so confident. And a lot of what I do is, especially with things like very politically divisive health topics, you know, rather than talking extensively about vaccines or even things like peptides now, which seem to people are either on one side of the fence or the other, just talk about general principles rather than just talking ad nauseum about experimental peptides. We don't know anything about them and it's a silly idea to take them, even though that is what I think. Rather than harping on about that, you can actually just talk about the principles of evidence-based practice, safety data, drug approval, and just get people thinking for themselves. Because as I've said, most people are not stupid. But if you just nudge them in the right direction, often they'll come to the right conclusions by themselves. And that's kind of exactly what the process that you've just described when you're working with a client who maybe is trying something that isn't particularly evidence-based, a more kind of subtle approach is sometimes they're the best strategy. You catch more flies with honey than with shit. I think that's the phrase here.

And so to speak of that, I'm wondering, because oftentimes when you do try and correct certain types of claims, there's going to be a variety of different pushback, even from well-meaning people, right? Maybe they see something that you've discussed and they say, well, hey, it worked for me. That's one of the most, the anecdote is one of the classic things that keeps many of these wellness things going, right? That, well, it worked for me, or I know someone who told me it worked for them. What way do you go about explaining to someone that whilst that may be their perception or might be the anecdote of a friend of theirs, that is not something that we can necessarily use to confirm that this thing actually works? Yeah,