How to improve your 'health literacy'

Where and how we get our health information has changed throughout my lifetime. A bit of history here.

In the mid-1970s, doctors were beginning to answer medical questions on radio and TV. The public criticized doctors for giving advice people thought was misleading or lacking scientific backing. But who was the arbiter of what was “misleading or lacking scientific backing”?

I bring this up now because of the current pushback against science. There’s a lot of bluster out there — lots of people who don’t have any scientific backing but who have stolen the microphone.

Yet, some of what they’re saying might have substance. So where do you turn for information and understanding?

Let’s start with a definition for “health literacy.” This is the ability to find, understand and use information and services to make informed decisions about one’s health.

You do that with what you’re doing right now, reading about health and wellness in a source you find reliable. Many of you have been reading my column for more than a decade, have seen me on TV or have listened to my public radio show.

Recently, I also started a podcast because I want to continue to give good, curated, intelligent information to help you make decisions. It’s called “Stay Well with Dr. Zorba Paster.” If you have a smartphone, you can get the podcast.

By the way, if you’ve never listened to a podcast before and don’t know how to access one, just find someone who is a teenager or young adult. They’ll be able to put my podcast on your phone, lickity-split.

Now, I know I’m hawking this podcast, but that’s because, combined with my weekly column, it can help you make decisions about your health and separate the weeds from the flowers. Let me give you an example of this.

The head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has said some good things (like let’s get rid of highly processed foods) and some bad things (like Tylenol shouldn’t be taken by pregnant women because it causes autism).

The first statement about processed foods makes sense. Author Mike Pollan wrote years ago that if your food has more than five ingredients, it’s probably fake food. That’s a bit of an overstatement, but his point was to read the label and see how much is put into your food, engineered to make you eat more.

So I think RFK is right on that one. If he can make a difference by saying it, so be it.

But the autism thing is wrong; fake news.

First, let’s look at the criteria for diagnosing autism. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association, serves as the standard reference used by mental health professionals in the U.S. and many other countries to diagnose and classify mental disorders, including autism.

DSM-I, published in 1952, was the first edition. Regarding autism, it was very brief and descriptive. By DSM-III, out in 1980, there was a major shift on autism, introducing clear diagnostic criteria and recognizing autism as a distinct disorder.

In the most current versions — DSM-5 (2013) and DSM-5-TR (2022) — the autism information integrates neuroscience and dimensional (spectrum-based) diagnostic approaches. Put simply, the latest versions have broadened the definition of autism.

If we had used the current definition of autism in the past, there would be no basis for what the health zealots are now shouting about. And to blame Tylenol for this unfounded idea of some great increase in autism is actually an abomination.

Tylenol is the only — I repeat, only — medication you can take for pain when you’re pregnant, short of opioids.

Taking ibuprofen in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy brings risks of miscarriage and possible heart defects at birth. In the second trimester, it can potentially lead to kidney dysfunction, resulting in reduced amniotic fluid. And in the third trimester, ibuprofen use could mean premature closure of the ductus arteriosus, a vital fetal blood vessel, leading to fetal heart and lung problems, bleeding and miscarriage.

My spin: So how do you decide who to believe? Is it the politically appointed anti-scientists on a government committee, or random movie stars with zero medical background? Or will you listen to someone like me, who is well-versed in science?