@sueinmn "... but we have people here on Connect openly saying that they get their medical advice from ChatGPT and similar sources ..."

I think it would be helpful for Mayo Clinic to have a page that states the priority that people should apply when evaluating medical treatments. Here is my version; feel free to adapt it:

1. Your doctor, provided you used common sense in picking him/her (eg, not just because he's a golfing buddy or a relative). For serious issues, it is best to pick a doctor in a research institution. Why is your doctor the first source? Because he/she knows your medical history the best, AND what the reliable studies & treatments are. Of course, you should cross-check your doctor's advice with the information from point #2 below. If there are consistent discrepancies, change your doctor & find a competent & educated one you trust. If you can't find such a doctor, you probably are unconsciously applying some bias in your selection.

2. Use established, independent medical studies that are VERIFIED with other independent studies. Remember 1989, when two chemists claimed they found a way to do "cold fusion" using palladium? The price of palladium not only went through the roof, but it also became "unobtanium" (yes, that is a word), as researchers around the world tried to reproduce the experiments. As a Caltech graduate, I didn't know much about fusion, but I knew enough to be highly skeptical. Good scientists & researchers are trained to be skeptical. Users making medical decisions should be skeptical as well. Even great discoveries in science initially face fierce skepticism: (1) The Big Bang Theory (initially a term of ridicule) in 1929 faced such resistance, with Einstein saying to the researcher, "Your math is OK, but your physics is terrible." It was 35 years before some evidence popped up, & another 10 years before the evidence was confirmed & the Nobel Prize was finally awarded in 1978. (2) Louis Pasteur faced ridicule in his development of an anthrax vaccine. (3) The woman who was recently awarded the Nobel Prize for her work in developing an mRNA vaccine for COVID, spent years of resistance. (4) There are many other examples.

My point is, good scientific discoveries usually face legitimate skepticism until VERIFIED. By contrast, "junk science" are quick attempts to bypass the scientific method of independent verification, & instead, use the media to popularize their "discoveries". Be a skeptic!

3. Use forums like this one from Mayo Clinic, but understand that unless forums like this are moderated by individuals who support the principles in point #2 above, the forum may be useless or worse. We recently had someone on this forum quoting all sorts of statistics, who claimed to be an impartial researcher, but was poorly informed & biased as well. Experiences have some value, but medicine is not an exact science. Developing statistics or reaching definitive conclusions from random (often biased) comments is worse than foolish. This is a good place to find out about treatment options, but not to make decisions without taking into account points #1 & #2 above. Again, be a skeptic!

4. Always "drill down" in AI results to the original source of the information. Ignore references to YouTube videos; these are generally even less authoritative than forums, because there is no meaningful feedback. Be REALLY skeptical of AI & YouTube!

5. Advertising is the worst! Claims of "clinically studied" or "clinically proven" mean NOTHING. Pictures of happy people (or happy dogs) are trying to manipulate you! Just IGNORE advertising claims!

6. Discard your biases. Be skeptical of yourself!

When I first came to this forum about a year ago, it was a good place to find out about options & share experiences. Around the beginning of the year, I have seen a large increase in the number of people searching for or advocating "alternate medicine". We even had someone wanting to blame prostate cancer on the COVID vaccine.

Let the reader beware!