At CancerDisinfo, we follow a transparent, evidence-based process to identify, verify, and explain cancer-related claims circulating in digital spaces. Our aim is to protect public health, reduce the harm caused by health misinformation, and support patients, caregivers, journalists, and the wider public in making informed decisions.
Our work does not replace medical advice. We encourage readers to consult qualified healthcare professionals before making decisions about diagnosis, treatment, medication, or care.
1. Identifying Claims
Monitoring
We monitor cancer-related and health-related claims across a range of online spaces, including:
- Social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, and X
- Messaging apps, forums, and online communities such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and Reddit
- News websites, health blogs, video platforms, and influencer content
- Public discussions around treatments, prevention, screening, nutrition, supplements, and alternative therapies
We also use keyword alerts and search terms such as “cancer cure,” “miracle therapy,” “alternative cancer treatment,” “natural cancer remedy,” and similar phrases to identify potentially harmful or misleading claims.
User submissions and community input
Readers can submit suspicious health claims, links, screenshots, or questions through our submission channels. Community input helps us identify emerging narratives and respond to claims that are actively circulating among patients, caregivers, and the wider public.
CancerDisinfo also maintains an active community space on Microsoft Teams, where community members can contact us directly, share questions, flag suspicious claims, and draw our attention to health-related narratives they encounter in their own networks. This community-based input helps us understand what people are seeing, asking, and worrying about in their everyday information environments.
Claims can be sent to: reach@cancerdisinfo.org
Prioritisation
We prioritise claims based on their potential public health impact and reach. In particular, we focus on claims that:
- Are going viral or are shared by influential accounts
- May discourage people from seeking evidence-based medical care
- Promote unsafe, unproven, or exploitative products or treatments
- Misrepresent scientific research, medical guidelines, or expert opinion
- Target vulnerable groups, including patients, caregivers, and people seeking urgent health information
2. Research and Verification
Preliminary review
Before beginning a full fact-check, we assess:
- What type of claim is being made: factual, opinion-based, interpretive, anecdotal, or scientific
- Whether the claim is new, recurring, or a recycled misinformation narrative
- Who is making the claim and whether they have relevant expertise
- How the claim is framed, including whether it uses fear, hope, conspiracy narratives, or exaggerated certainty
- What potential harm could result if people believe or act on the claim
Evidence gathering
We assess claims using the best available evidence from reliable and relevant sources, including:
- Peer-reviewed scientific studies
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses where available
- Medical guidelines and clinical recommendations
- Public health authorities and regulatory bodies
- Cancer research institutions and medical databases
- Statements or clarifications from relevant experts
We pay close attention to the quality of evidence. Early laboratory findings, animal studies, anecdotal accounts, unpublished claims, or small preliminary studies are not treated as equivalent to strong clinical evidence in humans.
Expert input
For complex or highly technical claims, we consult relevant experts such as oncologists, pharmacists, public health professionals, epidemiologists, researchers, and other qualified specialists.
When seeking expert input, we use a standardised process to ensure consistency, transparency, and fairness. Where relevant, we disclose conflicts of interest or institutional affiliations that may affect how expert commentary should be interpreted.
Verification tools
When needed, we use digital verification and social media analysis tools to understand:
- Where and how a claim is spreading
- Whether the claim has appeared before in another form
- Whether images, videos, screenshots, or quotes have been taken out of context
- Whether coordinated amplification, impersonation, or misleading framing may be involved
3. Rating Claims
Each fact-checked claim receives a clear verdict based on the available evidence at the time of publication.
False: The claim clearly contradicts reliable scientific evidence, medical consensus, or verified information from credible sources.
Misleading: The claim contains some element of truth but presents it in a deceptive, incomplete, exaggerated, or out-of-context way.
Unproven: There is not enough strong, reliable evidence to support the claim. The claim may be based on early-stage research, anecdotal evidence, weak studies, or sources that do not meet scientific standards.
True: The claim is consistent with current scientific evidence, medical consensus, and reliable data.
4. Explaining How Claims Mislead
In addition to giving a verdict, we explain the techniques or patterns that make a claim misleading. Common examples include:
Hidden interests: The source may have undisclosed financial, commercial, political, or ideological interests, such as selling unproven treatments, supplements, drugs, or services.
Source distortion: A real study, expert statement, medical guideline, or official source is misrepresented to support a claim it does not actually prove.
False certainty: A claim presents something as “proven,” “guaranteed,” or “suppressed truth” when the evidence is still uncertain, preliminary, or contested.
Selective evidence: The claim highlights only the evidence that supports its message while ignoring stronger or more relevant evidence that contradicts it.
Emotion over evidence: Personal stories, fear, hope, or emotional appeals are used to bypass scientific scrutiny.
False authority: Unqualified individuals are presented as experts, or expert credentials are exaggerated beyond their actual area of competence.
Scientific jargon trap: Complex scientific or medical terms are used in a confusing or misleading way to make a weak claim appear credible.
Conspiracy framing: The claim suggests that doctors, scientists, governments, or pharmaceutical companies are hiding “the truth” without providing credible evidence.
5. Writing and Presenting Findings
Clear and accessible language
We write in plain, accessible language for general audiences, especially patients, caregivers, and people seeking reliable health information online. We avoid unnecessary jargon and explain scientific concepts in simple terms.
When dealing with complex topics, we may use infographics, visual explainers, short summaries, and key takeaways to make the evidence easier to understand.
Transparency
In our fact-checks, we aim to show readers how we reached our conclusion. We provide links to the studies, guidelines, official sources, and expert input used in our research wherever possible.
When we quote experts, we identify their relevant expertise and disclose any known conflicts of interest or industry ties where relevant.
6. Publication and Distribution
Website
Full fact-checks, explainers, and analyses are published on the CancerDisinfo website.
Social media
Shorter, shareable versions of our work may be published on platforms such as Instagram, X, and other channels to reach audiences who are most likely to encounter health misinformation in digital spaces.
Community feedback
We welcome questions, corrections, and concerns from readers and community members. If feedback reveals missing context, unclear wording, or a possible error, we review the material and make updates where necessary.
7. Corrections and Updates
Ongoing monitoring
Cancer misinformation often reappears in new forms. When a claim we have previously covered begins circulating again, or when new scientific evidence becomes available, we may reassess and update our content.
Correction policy
If we make an error, we correct it clearly and promptly. Corrections are:
- Clearly marked
- Dated
- Explained in a way that shows what changed and why
When appropriate, we preserve earlier versions or note significant changes to maintain transparency.
Our Commitment
CancerDisinfo is committed to producing health information that is:
- Independent from political or commercial influence
- Based on evidence, not ideology
- Transparent in its process, sources, and funding
- Careful about uncertainty and scientific nuance
- Designed to inform and empower, not to scare or shame patients and caregivers
We believe accurate information can protect public health and help people navigate difficult health decisions with greater confidence.
To submit a claim for fact-checking, contact us at: reach@cancerdisinfo.org