I just thought of a corollary to tips 3 and 10. If there are no references, either real experts or actual papers for the source information, you should treat the information as sketchy and walk away. I thought of this today because Jen just posted a new article on DIV and at the bottom she included the references to the articles she read as sources. So she is an actual expert AND she did research and included her sources.
I will contrast that vs someone who posted on her Instagram asking about what Jen thought of vaginal steaming to which I replied they just needed to search on google for "Jen Gunter vaginal steaming" and they would find plenty of articles quoting her. I would treat her as a medical expert. But more importantly, if you read those articles, many talk about the "ancient practice of vaginal steaming." So already with the word "ancient" which we know is a red flag. But in addition, no one ever validates that it is actually ancient. I know jade eggs are definitely not ancient because Jen had an archeologist research that for her ( once again, an actual expert). But just because some influencer or actor claims it is ancient, doesn't make it so. How do they know? Because someone told them, and someone else told that person? I mean, they are actors! I know it is confusing, acTOR, docTOR, they both end in TOR, so they must be interchangeable?
Regardless, give me an actual reference from an actual credible source and maybe I will give your crazy ass theory a second look. I know the chance of this happening is so close to zero, that we should treat it as zero. However, we have to keep in mind that when new science breaks through, it often sounds like some crazy ass theory the first time it comes up. It can sound like magic. The difference is that when someone does create truly new science, a true scientist doesn't say that you should believe their "lived experience." Or, I know a bunch of people it has worked for, while ignoring all the people it hasn't worked for. A real scientist creates an experiment with actual controls to prove they are right and will work on convincing their peers with logic, not with "trust me". Hopefully you can see the difference there.
So this point is just a slightly different way of thinking of what Jen already wrote. Look for the references in the article. If they aren't forthcoming with their sources and studies backing them up, then be suspicious.
If you're looking for patient-level medical information, MedlinePlus is produced by the (U.S.) National Library of Medicine: https://medlineplus.gov/. The sources are all vetted and curated by medical librarians and health professionals and include many of the societies that Dr. Jen mentions in this article. Additionally, there is a mirror site in Spanish (https://medlineplus.gov/spanish/) and some content is available in a variety of other languages.
...and if you are going to read studies make sure they are from reputable journals. In recent years there has been a proliferation of "predatory," aka pay-to-publish journals that publish work without proper peer review and which charge scholars sometimes huge fees to submit. There is a list of possibly predatory journals here: https://predatoryjournals.com
I just thought of a corollary to tips 3 and 10. If there are no references, either real experts or actual papers for the source information, you should treat the information as sketchy and walk away. I thought of this today because Jen just posted a new article on DIV and at the bottom she included the references to the articles she read as sources. So she is an actual expert AND she did research and included her sources.
I will contrast that vs someone who posted on her Instagram asking about what Jen thought of vaginal steaming to which I replied they just needed to search on google for "Jen Gunter vaginal steaming" and they would find plenty of articles quoting her. I would treat her as a medical expert. But more importantly, if you read those articles, many talk about the "ancient practice of vaginal steaming." So already with the word "ancient" which we know is a red flag. But in addition, no one ever validates that it is actually ancient. I know jade eggs are definitely not ancient because Jen had an archeologist research that for her ( once again, an actual expert). But just because some influencer or actor claims it is ancient, doesn't make it so. How do they know? Because someone told them, and someone else told that person? I mean, they are actors! I know it is confusing, acTOR, docTOR, they both end in TOR, so they must be interchangeable?
Regardless, give me an actual reference from an actual credible source and maybe I will give your crazy ass theory a second look. I know the chance of this happening is so close to zero, that we should treat it as zero. However, we have to keep in mind that when new science breaks through, it often sounds like some crazy ass theory the first time it comes up. It can sound like magic. The difference is that when someone does create truly new science, a true scientist doesn't say that you should believe their "lived experience." Or, I know a bunch of people it has worked for, while ignoring all the people it hasn't worked for. A real scientist creates an experiment with actual controls to prove they are right and will work on convincing their peers with logic, not with "trust me". Hopefully you can see the difference there.
So this point is just a slightly different way of thinking of what Jen already wrote. Look for the references in the article. If they aren't forthcoming with their sources and studies backing them up, then be suspicious.
If you're looking for patient-level medical information, MedlinePlus is produced by the (U.S.) National Library of Medicine: https://medlineplus.gov/. The sources are all vetted and curated by medical librarians and health professionals and include many of the societies that Dr. Jen mentions in this article. Additionally, there is a mirror site in Spanish (https://medlineplus.gov/spanish/) and some content is available in a variety of other languages.
...and if you are going to read studies make sure they are from reputable journals. In recent years there has been a proliferation of "predatory," aka pay-to-publish journals that publish work without proper peer review and which charge scholars sometimes huge fees to submit. There is a list of possibly predatory journals here: https://predatoryjournals.com
That link does not work but I did find this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y
Unfortunately, it sounds like it can be difficult to suss out the “predatory” journals.