Cutting sugar out of your diet won't prevent cancer, or a basic guide to debunking Internet myths

This is the first rule of debunking Internet myths: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

In the last few days, I have seen multiple people post an article supposedly based on research from Johns Hopkins that you can effectively "starve out" cancer by cutting the foods it feeds on out of your diet-- sugar, milk, etc. This post, written on someone's WordPress, has swept social media outlets, convincing people that chemotherapy, surgery, advanced medical technology is all a sham, because if only you would eat healthy, you'd never succumb to cancer. Not so.

Johns Hopkins actually released a very comprehensive statement that debunks every one of the lies put forth in the article, and I would encourage anybody who is genuinely interested in learning how cancer works and how you can try to prevent it to read their statement.

This hoax isn't the only hoax that exists on the Internet. There are hundreds, thousands, possibly even millions. The thing about the Internet is, anybody can make a website and publish whatever content they like. Unlike newspapers, like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, that have teams of fact checkers and editors to vet articles, blogs and personal websites and YouTube videos, are not scrutinized for falsehoods. The point may seem obvious, but just to be clear: anybody can say whatever they want on the Internet, that does not mean it is true!

So next time you see your friend post an article that sounds too good to be true, here are a few basic steps you can take to quickly verify the veracity of the article yourself:

1. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Whenever you catch yourself thinking, "wow, this is so simple, I wish I had known that..." stop and ask yourself, "do all the facts add up?"

2. Find out where the article is coming from.
In the case of the fake cancer update, it was published on an individual's WordPress account. Take a look at the URL: does it have the words "wordpress" or "blogspot" in it? If so, keep in mind that those are sites that allow people to create personal blogs often free of charge. Blogs can be great for finding new recipes, sharing a personal opinion, or reading about a friend's trip to Japan, but blogs are usually not good sources for news, medical research, and other fact-based types of stories. (Also, just because the website calls itself something like "Wausau News" does not make it a true news source!)

3. Consider these questions: How is this article presented? Do you think the author may have an ulterior motive?
In the case of the cancer-sugar hoax, the webpage was littered with links on raw food diets and how they cure tumors, lupus, epilepsy, and all sorts of other diseases. Highly suspicious. Usually websites like this are trying to sell a product and falsely use the names of scientists, research institutions, and even celebrities to try to give credibility to their product.

A friend of mine once purchased natural diet pills because of ads featuring celebrities and experts. It was only after the company tried to charge her hundreds of dollars (fine print), that she learned the company was disreputable and used people's images without their consent, and wrote fake testimonials. Don't fall prey to a trap like this! Do your homework first.

4. This is a big one: Corroborate what you read with well known, credible sources.
Thanks to Google search, this step is actually wildly easy. Just type in your question to Google, and chances are you'll quickly find a valid source to verify. For example, I typed "does sugar cause cancer?" into Google, and the first result was an article from Mayo Clinic about the causes of cancer. The Mayo Clinic is an internationally known, very prestigious medical institution, and on page 2 of this article, Mayo clearly explains how cancer is caused and why some might mistakenly believe that sugar plays a role in this process.

Another way to verify the validity of information you read is to try to find the studies or people they reference. During my time as an assistant debate coach, two of my students came across a website that was filled with what seemed like valuable evidence for a hard to argue topic. I was suspicious, and searched for the names of the "professors" affiliated with the website. Turns out the professors did not exist. In some cases, the universities mentioned did not exist either. The entire website was a sham.

It was tempting for my students to try to get away with using false facts, but as one of my students wisely said: "I'd rather lose than use fake evidence."

In the case of the cancer hoax, Johns Hopkins was cited as the source for this research. If this was true, you'd be able to find news about this on the Johns Hopkins website or in an academic journal. It only takes a few minutes of Internet searching to find out that such an article does not exist-- and that in fact, Johns Hopkins has published its own article to inform the public that that supposed research is really a lie!


Now, some of you may be thinking: the media and big research institutions don't always tell the truth, ergo we should rely on blogs to expose facts that would otherwise be covered up. If you think that, I really don't know what I can say to you, except, please take a minute to think logically through the implications of that position.

Is it true that the media and big research institutions can be wrong or cover up truth? Yes, but when the choice is between believing in what the New York Times or a Stanford professor have to say versus a blogger or pseudo-scientist without a medical degree, I'd go with the former.

News outlets, like NPR, New York Times, even podcast This American Life, hire fact checkers to verify that what they share is true. If they slip up and post something erroneous, another news outlet will often quickly latch onto that and call them out-- essentially harming their reputation. Journalists lose their jobs over untrue reporting, bloggers do not.

When it comes to prestigious research publications, like Nature, there is a high bar set for whether or not an article is accepted for publication. Research must be methodically carried out, and is later thoroughly scrutinized by other professors and experts to assure the results are consistent. If something does not add up, the research is not published.

On the other hand, anybody can sit down and type up a blog post and photoshop a picture to make it look like a scientist or well known public figure is endorsing their product. I could type out the following sentence: "According to recent studies conducted by Dr. Jane Smith of the University of Hawaii, it has been found that you can teach dolphins how to converse in English." Just because I referred to a "doctor" and a real university, does not mean there is any validity behind the statement.

When it comes to facts, the little guys-- the bloggers-- might get it right when news media and research do not every one time in a million.

But if I had to bet my life on it-- if I had cancer and needed help-- I'd go with the real Johns Hopkins Medical Center, and not a website that blatantly lies about where its "facts" come from and tries to sell a raw food diet.

Confessions from a Peruvian who wishes she was more Peruvian

There has only been one time in my life (in the United States) where someone has come up to me and assumed I spoke Spanish-- and that was at an airport, where an elderly Latina woman was frantically looking for a departure gate, so it could've just been coincidence.

I have very pale skin, an assortment of face freckles, and varying shades of brown hair. People don't always believe me (or believe me with private reservation) when I tell them I'm 50% Peruvian. 

I don't usually take selfies, but when I do, I catch my reflection in a bathroom mirror.

"Yes, it's crazy, but I swear I'm Peruvian!"

Sometimes, after I tell someone I am Latina, they will squint a bit and look at me sideways, as if now that they know, my facial features will realign themselves and my skin will become a few shades darker. (Try it with the photo above, and let me know if any pixel magic happens).

I'll shrug awkwardly, and depending on what kind of mood I'm in, I may try to launch into my long list of "proofs that I am Peruvian." Here's an abridged version of how that usually goes:

1. I'll pull up a photo of my mom on my iPhone. "She looks Hispanic, right?"

2. If that doesn't work (my mother happens to be especially light skinned), I'll pull up photos of my grandparents. "Okay, they really really look Hispanic, right?!"

3. I'll bring up the fact that I speak Spanish fluently. Maybe not well enough to dictate a legal document, but certainly well enough to have a long conversation or give a talk at mi abuela's funeral. "Spanish-- or Castellano as we call it in Peru-- was actually my first language."

4. I might talk about all the family recipes I know how to cook-- papas a la huancaina, empanadas, kabocha... "I ate quinoa before it was cool." #quinoahipster

5. I'll share anecdotes from my trips to Peru-- such as the time I translated a local tour guide's funny jokes for English-speaking tourists or the time I visited a recently excavated ruin where my mom used to play as a child. "We stayed with family when we visited."

6. I'll show doubters my ID. "If I wasn't Peruvian, why would my middle name be Bejarano?"

7. Optional: If in my car and in the SF Bay Area, I will play copious amounts of Latino Mix and sing along. But who doesn't love Latino Mix? I even enjoy listening to their commercials.

Getting rained on at Ollantaytambo, Peru. Does the poncho make me look touristy?

Victoria-in-2009 probably cared more about proving her heritage than the Victoria of today cares. What's that trending Internet meme, "haters gonna hate"? 

With age and maturity (and I say this a little tongue-in-cheek, I'm only 25 and used a hashtag a few paragraphs earlier), I've discovered that what others think of you doesn't matter as much as what YOU think of yourself. 

Internalizing an Identity

So, what do I think of myself?

People look at me and, 9 times out of 10, assume I'm just another white girl. But this is where it gets really disconcerting, because, 9 times out of 10, I look at myself and assume the same thing. 

Maybe it's because whenever I try to find the Inca-in-the-mirror, I find can't-dance-white-girl instead. Maybe it's because I grew up thousands of miles away from Peru and my Peruvian extended family. Maybe it's partially due to the fact that people treat me like I'm white, and I've internalized that identity with more intensity than I've internalized my Peruvian identity.

I can casually whip out the fact I'm Peruvian, and people will show surprise. They'll think, "oh, that's really cool," but they won't stop thinking of me as a white girl. I'll be a white girl who is a little Peruvian, the same way I'm a white girl who majored in English or a white girl who took a year of Russian in college or a white girl that likes Bollywood.

It's as if "white" is my primary identity, and Latina my secondary.

But the crazy, crazy thing is that I am biologically 50% white and 50% Peruvian. So there should be no SECONDARY and no PRIMARY identity. Just equal halves.

How do I change my mind about myself? Do I get plastic surgery and a spray tan? Do I move to a country where I'm forced to communicate only in Spanish? Do I work with a speech therapist to develop a strong accent?

Or is the answer more simple than that? Maybe all I need to do is embrace who I am (and who I am not) and be okay with that. 

Now, excuse me while I go listen to "Taboo" by Don Omar again (which is mostly in Portuguese, but based on the Andean song "Llorando Se Fue" by Los Kjarkas, which is based on Lambada, a type of music).