A new book titled "Bad Influence: How the Internet Hijacked Our Health" by investigative journalist Dr. Deborah Cohen examines how social media platforms are reshaping healthcare practices and medical understanding. Cohen, a former health correspondent for BBC Newsnight and ITV News, explores how online influencers, social media algorithms, and digital tools are changing the way people seek and receive health advice.

The book's central focus is on individuals increasingly turning to the internet for medical guidance instead of consulting doctors directly. This shift is driven by factors including longer wait times for appointments, fewer in-person consultations, and patients feeling their health concerns are ignored or dismissed by traditional healthcare systems, particularly women seeking information about gynecological issues.

Social media algorithms create personalized content feeds that prioritize engaging posts with little oversight, presenting information as objective truth while amplifying anxiety around health concerns. The book highlights how these platforms enable both unqualified individuals and medical professionals to promote unproven treatments, weight-loss drugs like Ozempic, wearable technology, and preventative screening methods, often blurring the line between legitimate medical advice and marketing.

Cohen notes that while some online health content comes from genuine desire to help, much of it serves commercial interests. The practice becomes concerning when doctors and other medical professionals use social media to build parasocial relationships with followers, leveraging their authority to promote products or treatments that may lack scientific evidence.

The book addresses specific concerns about health-related technology products, including continuous glucose monitors and full-body MRI scans, targeting healthy individuals with no diagnosed medical conditions. Experts warn that false positive results can lead to unnecessary medical interventions, while false negatives may create dangerous false reassurance. Overdiagnosis of conditions that would never cause harm can result in treatments that cause more damage than the original issue.

With the emergence of large language models, Cohen suggests the health information landscape will become more complex, as 50% of Americans under 50 currently use social media as a source of health information. These AI systems may help people interpret medical jargon but also raise new questions about uncertainty and reliability in health guidance.

Health authorities including the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Advertising Standards Authority face challenges monitoring the vast volume of social media content, including temporary posts and direct messages that may contain unsubstantiated health claims. The broader impact extends beyond individual users, as unnecessary appointments, tests, and treatments for concerned but healthy patients strain healthcare resources that could otherwise serve those with genuine medical needs.

"Bad Influence" has received endorsements from medical professionals and journalists, including Dr Gabriel Weston and Adam Kay. It was shortlisted for the Royal Society Trivedi Science Book Prize and is scheduled for publication in January 2026.

Original Sources/Tags: livescience.com, livescience.com, medscape.com, oneworld-publications.com, wdet.org, doi.org, timesofindia.indiatimes.com, thenational.scot, (healthcare), (algorithms), (doctors), (support), (authority), (influence), (followers), (searchability)

The article offers no actionable steps for readers to take. It does not provide clear instructions, contact information, or tools that someone could use to verify health information or protect themselves from online misinformation. While it mentions that people turn to social media for health advice, it gives no practical guidance on how to evaluate sources, spot red flags, or make safer choices when searching for medical information online.

The educational depth is limited. The article states that algorithms prioritize engaging content and that medical influencers sometimes promote unproven treatments, but it does not explain how these systems actually work or why they tend to amplify certain types of information. The statistic about half of Americans under 50 using social media for health information is presented without context about how that research was conducted or what it really means. The book's claims about doctors leveraging authority are mentioned but not unpacked in a way that helps readers understand the underlying mechanisms.

Personal relevance is broad but indirect. Most people do encounter health information online, and many have felt dismissed by healthcare providers. However, the article does not connect these experiences to concrete actions readers can take in their daily lives. It describes a general problem without offering specific ways to navigate it.

The article does not serve a public service function. It raises concerns about misinformation and commercial influence but provides no warnings, safety tips, or emergency guidance. It reads as a summary of a book's themes rather than a resource for helping people make better health decisions.

No practical advice is given. The article does not suggest steps that an ordinary reader could realistically follow to protect themselves or their families from harmful health information online.

The long term impact is minimal. The article focuses on describing a problem rather than helping readers build habits or strategies they can use over time to stay informed and safe.

Emotionally, the article may increase anxiety without offering constructive ways to respond. It highlights risks and concerns but leaves readers without tools to address them, which can lead to helplessness rather than empowerment.

There is no clickbait language, but the article does overpromise by suggesting the book will explain complex issues without actually delivering that explanation in the text.

The article misses opportunities to guide readers toward better health information habits. It could have suggested ways to cross check health claims, identify credible sources, or talk to healthcare providers about online information.

To protect yourself when encountering health information online, start by checking whether the source is affiliated with a recognized medical institution or published in a peer reviewed journal. Be cautious of personal stories that promise dramatic results, especially when they are tied to products for sale. When you find health advice that seems too good to be true, look for confirmation from at least one independent source before acting on it. If you are considering a new treatment or supplement, write down your questions and bring them to a conversation with a healthcare provider. Keep a simple list of trusted health websites so you have a reliable starting point when you need information. Remember that algorithms are designed to keep you engaged, not to give you the most accurate information, so take breaks from scrolling and seek out information deliberately rather than passively.

The text uses soft words to make social media sound like the main problem. It says "social media is changing how people think about healthcare" without saying who is doing the changing. This makes it seem like social media is the bad guy instead of people or companies. The words hide who is really in charge of spreading health ideas.

The book calls some people "harmful actors" without naming them. This makes readers think bad people are hiding behind screens. The word "actors" sounds sneaky and mean. It hides the fact that these could be real doctors or companies with real names.

The text says algorithms "prioritize engaging posts" but does not say who made the algorithms. This hides the big tech companies that built them. It makes it sound like the computer is choosing, not the people who wrote the code. The words make the machine look guilty instead of the company.

The text says "many users, particularly women" turn to social media because doctors ignore them. This makes it sound like all women are being treated badly by doctors. It does not say how many women or if this is true for most. The words push readers to feel sorry for women and mad at doctors.

The book says medical influencers "sometimes promote treatments without proper evidence." The word "sometimes" is soft and hides how often this really happens. It makes the problem sound small and rare. The words make the bad actions seem less serious.

The text says "some online health content comes from genuine desire to help." This makes it sound like most of it is fake. The word "some" is small and hides the real amount. It sets up readers to distrust all online health advice.

The book says "much of it serves commercial interests" without saying which content. This makes all online health posts seem like ads. The word "much" is vague and hides the real number. The words push readers to think all health sharing is just selling.

The text says "half of Americans under 50" use social media for health info. It does not say where this number came from. The word "research" is used but no source is named. The number sounds big and scary without proof.

The book says people "might use social media to discover health topics and then turn to AI tools." The word "might" shows this is just a guess. It is written like it will really happen. The words make a future fear sound like a fact.

The text says doctors "leverage their authority to influence followers." This makes doctors sound like villains. The word "leverage" sounds sneaky and planned. It hides that doctors might just want to help people stay healthy.

The book says users "struggle to distinguish helpful information from potentially harmful advice." This makes readers feel dumb and confused. The word "struggle" makes it sound like everyone is lost. The words hide that some people can tell the difference fine.

The text says the situation "may become more complicated" with AI. The word "may" shows this is just a guess. It is written like it will definitely get worse. The words make a future worry sound like a sure thing.

The text says "particularly women" feel ignored by doctors. This makes it sound like only women have this problem. It hides that men and other people might feel ignored too. The words push readers to think this is just a women's issue.

The book says "large language models" will make things worse. It does not say how or why. The words make AI sound scary without proof. It hides that AI could also help find real medical facts.

The text says "research indicates" the number about Americans. It does not say who did the research or when. The words make the claim sound solid. It hides that the study might be old or biased.

The text carries several emotions that work together to shape how the reader feels about social media and health. One of the strongest emotions is worry. Words like “harmful actors,” “misinformation,” and “unproven treatments” make the reader feel nervous about what they might find online. This worry is meant to make people pay closer attention to the health advice they see on social media. Another emotion is sadness. Phrases like “health concerns are ignored or dismissed” make the reader feel sorry for people who do not get help from doctors. This sadness helps the reader understand why people turn to social media in the first place. Anger is also present. Words like “leveraging their authority” and “much of it serves commercial interests” make the reader feel upset, as if some people are being tricked or sold to. This anger pushes the reader to question who is really trying to help. Fear shows up when the text talks about algorithms and large language models making things worse. Words like “may become more complicated” make the reader feel scared about the future. This fear is meant to make people think hard about how new technology could hurt them. There is also a small amount of hope. Phrases like “some online health content comes from a genuine desire to help” remind the reader that not everything online is bad. This hope keeps the reader from feeling completely lost or angry.

These emotions help guide the reader’s reaction in different ways. Worry and fear make the reader feel careful and alert, so they pay more attention to where they get health advice. Sadness and anger make the reader feel sympathy for people who are not treated well by doctors, and they may start to distrust doctors or companies that seem sneaky. Hope makes the reader feel like there is still good in the world, so they do not give up on finding real help. Together, these feelings push the reader to feel concerned about social media, to question what they see online, and to want to learn more about how to stay safe.

The writer uses emotion to persuade by choosing words that sound strong instead of calm. For example, the word “hijacked” makes it sound like the internet took control of people’s health without asking. Repeating ideas, like saying “misinformation” and “unproven treatments,” makes the problem feel bigger and more serious. The writer also tells stories about real people, like women who feel ignored by doctors, which makes the reader feel close to the problem. Comparing social media to something that “amplifies anxiety” makes it sound like a loud, scary place. Making things sound extreme, like saying “half of Americans under 50” use social media for health, makes the issue feel urgent and important. All of these tools help the reader feel strong emotions, which makes them more likely to agree that social media is changing health in a bad way.