Sydney, Australia – A new study has found that influencer posts promoting medical tests on social media are often misleading, raising concerns about overdiagnosis, unnecessary treatments, and mental health impacts for patients.

Researchers analyzed over 900 posts on Instagram and TikTok, focusing on influencers with more than 1,000 followers. The study, led by Dr. Brooke Nickel from the University of Sydney, revealed that more than 80% of posts had a promotional tone, while only 6% cited scientific evidence about the effectiveness of the tests being advertised.

Concerns Over Medical Misinformation

Dr. Nickel warned that many of these tests, promoted under the guise of early screening and personal health control, are unnecessary for most people.

“The vast majority of these posts were overwhelmingly misleading,” she stated. “They are marketed as a way to take control of your health, but the science backing their efficacy is often shaky.”

The study examined social media posts about five specific medical tests, including:

• Full-body MRI scans
• Genetic testing claiming to detect early signs of 50 cancers
• Gut health tests
• Testosterone level tests
• Ovarian reserve (egg count) tests

One of the primary risks associated with unnecessary medical testing is overdiagnosis, where healthy individuals are diagnosed with conditions that would never cause them harm.

Influencers Driving Overuse of Medical Tests

The research found that more than half of influencer posts encouraged followers to take action and get tested, yet only 6% mentioned the risks of overdiagnosis.

Dr. Ray Moynihan, an assistant professor at Bond University in Australia, described the situation as “a public health crisis.”

“Social media is an open sewer of medical misinformation,” he said. “This exacerbates overdiagnosis and threatens the sustainability of health systems.”

Financial Incentives and Regulatory Concerns

The study also revealed that 68% of influencers promoting these medical tests had financial interests, such as paid partnerships or discount codes, creating a potential conflict of interest.

“One of the key themes influencers use is ‘knowledge is power,’ but much of the information is cherry-picked,” Dr. Nickel explained. “When it comes to health, getting the full picture is essential, and half-truths can be dangerous.”

However, the study also noted that posts made by physicians (around 15% of the total sample) were generally more balanced, with fewer promotional tones and more emphasis on potential risks.

Call for Stricter Regulations

Given the widespread promotion of misleading health information, researchers emphasized the need for stronger regulations on social media platforms to prevent misinformation and protect public health.

“There must be greater oversight to ensure medical advice shared online is accurate and evidence-based,” Dr. Moynihan concluded.

Several world leaders, including Argentina’s President Javier Milei and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, have expressed their intentions to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO), following the United States’ decision to leave the global health body last month. However, the legal complexities of such a move present an unclear path forward.

No Clear Exit Mechanism in WHO Constitution

Unlike other international organizations, the WHO’s constitution—an international treaty signed by nearly every country—does not include a formal withdrawal clause. The organization was founded in 1946 with the intention of fostering universal cooperation in global health, making the idea of member states leaving a legal gray area.

“The idea in the field of public health was for the WHO to be as universal as possible,” said Stéphanie Dagron, an international law professor at the University of Geneva.

While the U.S. reserved the right to exit when it joined in 1948, no such provision exists for other nations. This means countries like Argentina and Hungary face legal uncertainty in their attempts to leave.

How Countries Could Withdraw

Despite the lack of a formal exit clause, international law provides some guidance. The 1969 Vienna Convention states that if a treaty does not specify withdrawal terms, member states must provide one year’s notice before leaving.

This suggests that Argentina and other nations would have to navigate a year-long process before officially cutting ties with the WHO, potentially slowing down their exit plans.

Pedro Villarreal, a researcher in global health law at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, noted that while no clear precedent exists, withdrawal is still legally possible. “The fact that an international treaty does not envisage withdrawal does not mean that countries cannot withdraw,” he explained.

Inactive Status: A Middle Ground?

While an outright departure remains uncertain, historical precedent suggests that nations could instead take on an “inactive” status. When the Soviet Union stopped participating in the WHO in 1949, it was not seen as a formal withdrawal but rather as a period of inactivity. The USSR later rejoined in 1956 without needing to ratify the constitution again.

Whether countries like Argentina or Hungary could follow a similar path remains an open question. Steven Solomon, the WHO’s principal legal officer, acknowledged the ambiguity, saying, “The question of whether withdrawal is possible, and if so, how it would be given effect, and under what conditions, is a matter of interpretation.”

Potential Consequences of Withdrawal

If countries were to go inactive or withdraw, they would face significant consequences. Member states are required to pay annual fees, and those that stop contributing could lose their voting rights at the World Health Assembly. More importantly, they may also forfeit access to WHO-backed health programs and initiatives.

For nations with struggling healthcare systems, this could mean reduced support in areas such as disease prevention, vaccine distribution, and emergency health response.

What Happens Next?

For now, no formal withdrawal requests have been submitted, and the topic is not currently on the agenda for the WHO’s next World Health Assembly in May.

“At the moment, it’s a political announcement,” Dagron said, emphasizing that any final decisions on withdrawal will likely involve further legal and diplomatic negotiations.

As more countries weigh their options, the global health community is left watching to see how this unprecedented situation unfolds.