lindali
Podcast, Provider Interviews, Rheumer Has It

Rheumer Has It: Myths and Misconceptions About Arthritis Research (What Patients Should Know) with Dr. Linda Li

March 26, 2026
32 min read
Add comment

Listen Now:

Watch Now:

Summary:

In this episode, we’re joined by Dr. Linda Li to break down a question so many people living with arthritis have: How do I know what information I can actually trust?

With so much conflicting advice online, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed, or even hopeful about claims that are ultimately  unfounded. Together, we walk through how to find reputable research, what “peer-reviewed” really means, and why one exciting study doesn’t equal a proven treatment. Dr. Li also explains key concepts like plain language summaries, the hierarchy of evidence, and how to spot common traps like cherry-picking data or misleading headlines.

Our goal on this episode is to give you some practical tools so you can feel more confident, informed, and supported in your health decisions. Because learning how to interpret research helps you build realistic, evidence-based hope that actually serves you long-term. 

Episode at a glance:

  • Why “doing your own research” can feel empowering, but also confusing without the right tools
  • Trusted places to start when looking for arthritis information (so you’re not relying on random posts or headlines)
  • What “peer-reviewed research” means in plain language
  • How plain language summaries make research more accessible (and why to look for them)
  • Why not everything published in a journal is high-quality (and what “predatory journals” are)
  • The truth about “one study says…” and why science is built over time
  • What cherry-picking data looks like—and how it can lead to misleading conclusions
  • The difference between correlation and causation (and why it matters for treatment decisions)
  • Red flags to watch for when you see bold claims online
  • Simple ways to feel more confident evaluating research, without necessarily needing a science degree

Medical disclaimer: 

All content found onArthritis Life public channels (including Rheumer Has It) was created for generalized informational purposes only. The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

Episode Sponsors

Rheum to THRIVE, an online course and support program Cheryl created to help people with rheumatic disease go from overwhelmed, confused and alone to confident, supported and connected. See all the details and join the program or waitlist now! 

Speaker Bios:

Dr Linda Li

Dr. Linda Li is Professor and holds the Harold Robinson/Arthritis Society Chair in Arthritic Diseases at the Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Senior Scientist at Arthritis Research Canada. Her research in implementation science focuses on strategies to enhance patient care and support self-care activities. Specifically, her work revolves around the integration of digital tools to improve clinical practice. Examples include the use of interactive decision aids to enhance communication between patients and health professionals, and the use of wearables and apps to promote physical activity in chronic disease management.

Eileen Davidson Bio

Eileen Davidson, also known as Chronic Eileen, is a disability and chronic illness advocate from Vancouver BC Canada. Living with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, she spends a large focus on volunteering and creating awareness around arthritis. With The International Foundation for Autoimmune and Autoinflammatory Arthritis (AiArthritis) Eileen is the Educational Media Assistant. Along with AiArthritis, Eileen is a member of the Arthritis Research Canada patient advisory board, and author with over 150 published articles.

Cheryl Crow

Cheryl is an occupational therapist who has lived with rheumatoid arthritis for over twenty years. Her life passion is helping others with rheumatoid arthritis figure out how to live a full life despite arthritis, by developing tools to navigate physical, emotional and social challenges. She formed the educational company Arthritis Life in 2019 after seeing a huge need for more engaging, accessible, and (dare I say) FUN patient education and self-management resources.

Episode links:

Full Episode Transcript:

[00:00:00] 

Eileen Davidson: Welcome to Rheumer has it, the podcast of bust miss highlights evidence and inspires hope for living better with rheumatic disease 

Cheryl Crow: through plain language interviews with experts, we offer actual knowledge so you can thrive today. 

Eileen Davidson: My name is Eileen 

Cheryl Crow: and my name is Cheryl. 

Eileen Davidson: Join us as we bust myths and spotlight evidence.

Alright, so today we are very happy to have somebody that is from the same area as me Vancouver, British Columbia, and the, I would say the first researcher that I ever partnered with involving as a patient partner. We have Dr. Linda Li, who is from Arthritis Research Canada and a UBPC,. UBC professor with physiotherapy.

And I picked her today to talk about what patients should [00:01:00] know about high quality arthritis research and debunking some myths and misconceptions that kind of come around. A lot of things that you’ll understand when we get into it, but why people may think a research study is good, but it might actually not be that great.

And I decided to ask Dr. Linda Li because, first of all, I’ve been working with her for about eight years now. I have not more involved in her own studies even being a patient who has spoken to her students for physiotherapy, but also I was involved in the 2023 integrative treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis put out with the American College of Rheumatology and doctor.

Li was one of the researchers or people that were able to read all of the massive amount of literature review that they had to go through to pick out what the actual panel would kind of sift through and come up with what these guidelines were, and they were so very evidence driven. So [00:02:00] that is why I’ve asked Dr.

Li here, because I think she is the best person to talk about. What is a good research study and how can we help patients understand how they can find one and find a bad one? So, Dr. Li, I’m very excited to have you here. 

Dr Linda Li: Thank you, Eileen. Thank you, Cheryl. Thank you for having me.

Cheryl Crow: Yay. We’re, yeah, we’re so happy to have you.

And just to dovetail on what Eileen said the reason this is so particularly important to me as well is that especially in the last, really the last five years since I started doing this work of patient education on social media and on podcasts. And YouTube and everywhere else is that there’s, I’ve really seen an erosion of public trust in public health and a lot of anti-science sentiment online.

And it’s really concerning to me as a patient because a lot of times people have a, maybe a good intention to do their own research, and we definitely benefit from learning about our conditions, [00:03:00] but we have to find a way to ensure that we are not just falling into some. Pitfalls or traps of like cherry picking data or thinking that we’re following someone evidence-based who’s really a snake oil salesman in disguise.

So, that’s my personal connection to this, but yeah. Let’s go to you. Can you let us, Dr. Li, know a little bit more about your training and experience with arthritis research? 

Dr Linda Li: Sure. So I am a physiotherapist by background. The work that we do involves a lot on exercise for people with arthritis, physical activity.

And what are the better ways to, help to self-manage the condition? And I am also an implementation scientist. So what we do is really trying to get to find ways to get the best evidence that we know about arthritis treatment, for example, into the hands of people living with the condition as well as the care providers so that they can work better together.

So having good evidence and knowing how to look for good [00:04:00] evidence is really important, and that’s the passion of my work. 

Cheryl Crow: Well that’s, it’s perfect to have you here today then. So the first question is that, a lot of our listeners, they really wanna learn more about arthritis research, but they aren’t sure where to start.

So what do you think are some of the most important things for patients to know in terms of how it’s to find and understand reputable research? 

Dr Linda Li: Yeah, oftentimes, the. Quickest source of information for people. Especially with technology, with social media, people would tend to go to, places.

That they can easily find information, but oftentimes, you know it, the information may or may not be based on science or may not. Accurate. So there are, websites available that we know from rep, reputable sources such as, arthritis Foundation in the United States, as well as, arthritis Research Canada, which is the [00:05:00] organization where we conduct a lot of research in this area.

And also from, your healthcare provider. Like those are the sources of information or places where you can get good, reliable. Information. Like you said, Cheryl, a lot of individuals will, want to do their own homework and. And find out, what are, some of the ways that they can help themselves with.

And also, wanting to have a better conversation with their healthcare provider. Like people are encouraged to take charge of your health, do your own homework. So people are following their recommendation. And oftentimes, there’s some of the things that people would do is to look at, what is on online, what’s on social media.

But it is really important for people to know how to, identify information that reputable in, in order to. To be a better partner, with the healthcare provider as well as make better decisions [00:06:00] about their own healthcare. 

Cheryl Crow: Yeah. And one, I would just add to that, that a lot of these.

Reputable sources like the research foundation and stuff like that. They’ll provide source citations for the evidence. A lot of times on social media, people will say, oh, well I helped this person ’cause I did X, Y, Z, and they felt better. But there’s no citation to any external like, unbiased research on that.

And one of the things people might have heard a lot of times before is peer reviewed research. What does that actually mean? Can you let our audience know what peer review. Is and why that’s important. 

Dr Linda Li: That, that’s a really good question. So when researchers finish doing their work, publish their results, what we usually do is, you prepare, your paper, your manuscript, and you want to have.

Other individuals who are al also understanding the [00:07:00] area and the methods that you’re doing the research to, look at what’s being written, how the study’s being done, and provide constructive feedback so that you can further improve this paper. So in, so that’s how Peer Review Journal works.

Typically they will once they receive. Submission from researcher research teams. They will then independently select people who are in the field or have knowledge about the methods that’s being used, and they’ll ask them to provide feedback on the paper. Those process oftentimes are blinded, meaning that the authors don’t know who are the re who the reviewers are.

So it gives the reviewers confidence in, giving feedback without worrying about repercussion or anything like that. And then, the journal, those journals will usually will take the review feedback and decide whether, send it [00:08:00] back to the authors so that they can, do some improvement or if the the what’s being written is not up to scientific standard.

The editorial board may decide to reject. The article in a very small number of cases, paper may just go through after the first review ’cause they’re so perfect. Doesn’t happen often. Usually people will get feedback from the peer reviewers to improve the papers. So that’s a bit of, so then once the paper is improved, reviewers will look at it again.

And that’s a bit of an iterative process to make sure that. What the journal is going to be publishing is in, the best scientific quality. And it is scientifically sound. So that’s why the peer review process is so important and that’s why peer review scientific literature is being held as a higher standard publication in terms of sharing research knowledge.

Eileen Davidson: I wanna circle a little bit. Around that knowing [00:09:00] that they have a number of award, and these are brilliant people, researchers, science, and I’ve been in the room with many researchers and you, when you go through the process of picking our studies and whatnot, a lot of it goes over my head. I will be perfectly honest.

There’s a lot of research jargon, medical jargon, depending on who’s there. If it’s a data analyst, then I’m really not gonna understand it. But say if there’s somebody who wants to understand what research is going on, but necessarily is uncomfortable with understanding, say a full abstract that they find in arthritis Research and care.

Can you walk us through what a plain language summary is so that the people that maybe are a little intimidated by the scientific jargon can understand that they can look for something that is actually meant so that it’s applicable [00:10:00] to everyone? 

Dr Linda Li: Yeah. Scientific research oftentimes is being seen as this big, mysterious thing.

That, it has jargons, it has acronyms, it has language that is so hard for people who are not in the field to understand it. And sometimes it’s not just for people who are not researchers, but even for myself, I, as an implementation scientist, as a health services researcher, when I look at an article that is done in, biological research or in, in a research lab that is not in my area. Some of the acronyms I may not understand either, but at the same time. Myself and many others o other people will ha you under, you can understand how a research question is being asked.

What are the general methods that was used to to address the [00:11:00] question. What are the results and what is, what are the implications? What are the conclusion, right? People can understand in general. So there’s this movement that encouraging better science communication and I think, kudos to you, Eileen and Cheryl as well, that you’ve done so much in helping the, to encourage researchers.

To use language and really intentional and be thoughtful in a way that explaining what they do, how, what question they’re asking, how did they do it, what did they find, and what are the conclusion. So that is really the backbone of plain language summary. Basically avoid using language that are that is very specific to the field that avoid using acronyms.

Especially the ones that are not defined, only a small group of people who know what they mean. So don’t use those acronyms and really explain it in the way that people can relate to. I’m really pleased to see that some of the [00:12:00] journals actually. Mandate researchers to provide a plain language summary so that not only individuals who have knowledge and expertise can understand what’s being done,

everybody, or, people who are not in the field can can have access to those information and understand what’s what’s in there as well. So that’s that’s a story of plain language summary. 

Eileen Davidson: Yeah, they’re so important. And one thing I love about being on the Arthritis Research Canada Patient Advisory Board is that they have actual patients writing those plain language summaries.

Dr Linda Li: Yeah. 

Eileen Davidson: So that other patients can understand it. And that is actually starting to pick up a little bit more for some other editorial places I’ve noticed too. And that’s great because as patients really speak a certain language to each other, it could make things a little bit easier to understand. Yeah.

Thank you for walking us through plain language summaries and for those who are listening and want to get into reading about research, but a little [00:13:00] intimidated look for those plain language summaries. However,

Dr Linda Li: I think one, thing that we actually benefit so much is that as we’re training the next generation of researchers, oftentimes we make it as part of the.

Part of the the training that we work with students to develop plain language summary and work with. Patient partners like Cheryl, like Eileen to refine the language and how you describe things and and how do you structure a plain language summary. So again, I think I thank you for the work that both of you are doing in not only communicating science or helping us to communicate science, but also help us and the next generation to be better science scientists and better communicators.

Eileen Davidson: Well, yeah. I’ll just put it in a little fun fact. Arthritis Research Canada was the first research institute to have a patient advisory board. So they have been leading the way with involving patients in their research and including pa plain language summaries. So, and. Dr. Linda Li [00:14:00] has been one of the, I call her the queen of patient engagement in research.

So, thank you for that, really making sure that it is applicable and understandable for all people. However, there’s one thing that we need to talk about, and it’s a common assumption that if something is published in an academic journal, that it must be credible. Is this actually true? 

Dr Linda Li: Yeah, so sadly it is not always true.

There are lots of scientific journals out there. Some are, better quality than others. So in arthritis field some of the ones in, audience may have heard of like arthritis and rheumatology. Arthritis Scan research journal of Rheumatology. I mean, those are reputable journals that, are very rigorous in their peer review process.

But we also know that in the past, I would say, five, 10 years. Journal, public [00:15:00] academic journal publication is becoming such a big industry that there are journals out there that will actually charge for for publishing. And because it becomes a for-profit entity that there are more, the more and more journals that’s being created and some of those journals actually.

Have looks like they have an editorial board, looks like they have a peer review process, but when you dig into how well the peer review process is being done, it may not be as rigorous. Some of the one, the journals that I mentioned. So what it means is that some of the articles that’s being published may not be as scientifically rigorous.

There may be flaws in the study design. There may be flaws in the analysis and there may be inaccuracy in terms of how the results being interpreted. So it is true that, sometimes when you see a publication that looks like a scientific paper, [00:16:00] the information is in there. It, depending on the journal, it depends on what kind of peer review process it gone through.

That it, it, the information may or may have, may or may not have, some inaccuracies in there. 

Cheryl Crow: Yeah, that, that makes a lot of sense. And I think one, we’re gonna put a link in the show notes about how to identify what’s called like a predatory journal, so these kind of fake sham journals.

And one of the questions that I think is, or one of the tips that we found out before recording this is that, look to see whether the results that you’ve seen in one study, have they been replicated. With other research and other journals. Would you agree with that? Like that? That’s maybe a helpful tip.

’cause especially if you see something that’s an outlier, you’re like, huh, I’ve never heard this before. And then you realize, oh, it was only this one study that was totally sponsored by somebody with a conflict of interest or something like that. 

Eileen Davidson: I. Love [00:17:00] cross-referencing my information. So I found it very useful in the beginning of my diagnosis, not to just look at the Canadian resources like Arthritis Research Canada, arthritis Society, but I was also going to versus arthritis, or not arthritis uk and then going to the Arthritis Foundation to see am I finding the right information?

And a lot of time. It matched. So that was very important to understand. And also in the show notes, I will put the blog posts that I wrote with I believe it’s 10 or 12 reputable arthritis journals, including the three that Linda Li mentioned. So I’ve done the the he v work on that one.

Cheryl Crow: That’s amazing. And this actually leads right into the next kind of misconception we’ve seen online is that. A misconception around science research in general is that one, if one study shows something works, then it’s proven. That’s it. One and done. Is that how science works? And if not, [00:18:00] why?

Dr Linda Li: Yeah. Science is cumulative.

It’s like you don’t build a high rise building in, one day. 

When we test ideas or test a new treatment, you get a smaller number of people who may have, there’s that, that they meet the criteria of, probably more likelihood of being responsive to the treatment if the treatment actually works. And so those type of, smaller pilot type of project, oftentimes it may show you very, the spectacular result, right? Because it is, the it’s more targeted, to a certain group, a certain segment of people with the condition. And then, with the small, smaller sample size, and the highly controlled environment, it may work really well. But Cheryl, as you mentioned, these sort of studies not need or, and they need to be replica, replicated.[00:19:00] 

So that that, in a larger population, in a different setting, in a different environment, different left disease status that do they still work the same or they work a little bit differently, or maybe it is no effect, so relying on the result of one, breakthrough study, especially the ones that are earlier in the scientific inquiry. With a smaller group of individuals, oftentimes, they may show promise, but but in terms of treatment decision making, it may be a good starting point to bring that to your healthcare provider and have a conversation and see how, you know this.

Newer evidence can be incorporated into part of, the treatment. Or maybe, your healthcare provider may, look at the body of evidence and say that, it may be just a little bit, too early to to incorporate that the, a new treatment, that, early in the research process. So I [00:20:00] think, part of it is to be careful when you see one single study that looks like it’s a blockbuster. When you look at it, it’s it’s small, it is kind of early, and you never heard that someone did that before. 

Cheryl Crow: Yeah, that, that makes a lot of sense.

And something related to this concept that we wanted to point out is this concept that I learned while getting my master’s in occupational therapy, which is called cherry picking data, which is the phenomenon where you decide that you want you, you believe that there is a relationship between two variables.

And instead of looking at the wealth of evidence, let’s say 1215 hundred studies on this, you decide to just find and only look at the ones that prove what you want to be true. And that’s really easy to do. And an example I just saw on social media, there was a great Susie Squats, a physical therapist posted about weighted vests and what she, the example was [00:21:00] there is one study that did show that people who wore weighted vests and did a series of exercises with them showed better bone density. But guess what? When you dive into the details, those people also did high intensity strength training while wearing the vest. But what a lot of people on social media did was they extrapolated from those results, oh, I just need to walk and wear this vest. And the people who sell the vests were like.

This is great news. I can just slap this thing on the vest. The, these studies show that evidence show a science. There is a scientific peer-reviewed journal article, but your a every, the articles that actually are looking at the vest outside of the interval training do not strength training, do not show a relationship between just the vest and the bone density.

It’s really the vest wasn’t the what pulled the lever on the effectiveness. It was the strength training. So that’s a long way of saying that, but it’s real. I have to say, I found, and this [00:22:00] before there was even one, I’ll give an example of myself one quick one. I found one study that showed that the support groups didn’t help people with their quality of life, which I had this mental ’cause I, I’m all about support groups now.

The wealth evidence does show that support groups help people. But I was like, I had this mental temptation to say, I’m not gonna look at that. I don’t wanna look at that. Our minds, we don’t want to look at contradictory evidence. So anyway what are your, sorry, that was a long way of saying it.

What are your thoughts on cherry picking data? How do you see that happening? 

Dr Linda Li: Yeah, that’s, that happens a lot. In, especially in arthritis context. And it’s a dangerous thing to do. So the example you gave about the what do you call that? The loader, the weighted, we 

Cheryl Crow: call 

Dr Linda Li: them the weighted vests.

Yeah, that, that’s a really good example. In, in arthritis, I mean, like as you were talking, I’m trying to think of example myself as well. And one of the one of them is acupuncture. As another [00:23:00] example. So, Eileen mentioned that, , we did some work with the American College of Rheumatology guideline on exercise lifestyle intervention, non-pharmacological intervention for managing rheumatoid arthritis.

And one of the recommendation in acupuncture is that it’s conditional recommendation. And part of it is because there are sort of, the evidence for the effective of acupuncture is mixed. Okay? So if you look at the studies in, in, in arthritis where acupuncture is used, it looks like it has some effect.

However, if you group the studies that where people, are did not know if they’re actually getting acupuncture. The effect actually is not that spectacular. The the effect in terms of dealing with pain. It’s not statistically significant, but [00:24:00] if you look at the studies where people actually knew whether they’re getting acupuncture, so the, what we call blinding, so the person is not completely blinded to the the intervention that they get.

The result is more positive. So, cherry picking example would be that someone who is promoting acupuncture as a treatment option would e emphasize the results from the studies where people actually, knew what kind of treatment that they were getting. So the more positive result in that group, in that group of studies.

So part of it is that, it overemphasize what. Kind of effect that acupuncture can provide. And at the same time we’re, ignoring some of the studies where, the it’s actually better design where people were not sure about the treatment which treatment they were given, whether they’re getting acupuncture or not.

So the important thing is [00:25:00] that we need to look at all the studies that’s being done. In in the use of acupuncture using acupuncturist as an example, when you’re rec making a recommendation. And therefore, the American College of Rheumatology give a conditional recommendation in acupuncture because the evidence quality is not in a tip top shape.

Eileen Davidson: I remember being part of that and it was really eye-opening for some of the treatments, especially like chiropractor work. Learning how that wasn’t really recommended for people with rheumatoid arthritis and just learning about how the evidence wasn’t there for some things. I thought it was really interesting how the evidence was so strong for exercise though.

And also when we were speaking a little bit earlier about those weighted vests and how the ones that were doing the strength training were the ones that had better chance of not developing osteoarthritis or osteoporosis, I knew why, because I’ve been following research and that’s because they’ve been strength [00:26:00] training.

So, very important to be following quality research so that you can even actually pick little details like that. But it can be kind of hard when you are on social media and there’s people who are throwing different studies at you. I’ve heard some definitely wild things in my day and they try and throw a study or a screenshot of a study not even the full thing.

So what are. That a somebody who is looking at a study would be able to tell that they should be leaving the results from it, that they, it’s a real reputable study. What are some red flags and some green flags? 

Dr Linda Li: Yeah. So to, look for reputable or good scientific information.

Some of the reputable sources that, we talked about earlier. Like [00:27:00] Arthritis Research Canada, arthritis Foundation and I know you, you mentioned that you put a, put together a list where people can find reputable information and also written in plain language that’s important.

I think part of it is to look. Look for the information in, in, in in plain language summary in ways that you can understand that will be helpful and understanding and having a little bit of knowledge, understanding, so what we call the hierarchy of research. Evidence would be important as well.

Some of the studies that are, based on a design that, you when you’re testing a new treatment, for example, you also have what they call a control that you can compare with. So essentially you have individuals who are, otherwise, the same in terms of their background, their health condition.

[00:28:00] You basically have people who meet a certain set of criteria. And then you randomly, assign whether people getting, the treatment itself or getting this inactive, control or placebo sort of thing. So essentially you’re changing one thing.

Which is you get the treatment or you’re not getting the treatment. So then we’ll know at the end if the person improve, we’ll know that you know it is because of, the one thing that’s different, which is the treatment. So those sort of evidence tend to be the highest level of evidence because it shows causation is a cons effect.

In some of the studies they also, good design, but they may not have the control, environment. Some of the study that look at correlation, for example, they look at, whether the existence of a specific type of treatment and an outcome that people would, experience whether they.

Actually happened at the [00:29:00] same time. So you’re looking at the correlation of the of the two two components. So it gives some idea. Of whether a specific intervention, specific treatment has potential, to be useful in improving a certain type of outcome. But you’re looking at correlation and as people always say, correlation is not causation.

They’re not the same thing. So having a bit of understanding of the level. Of evidence that you’re looking at can be useful in terms of understanding, whether the information is is high quality or is something that you may want to actually want to look a little bit more and see if, there are high quality studies that can back up what you’re seeing. 

Cheryl Crow: That, that makes a lot of sense. And you’ve already basically answered our next question, which is gonna be like three practical things people can do who want to get better at understanding research. I think the only thing [00:30:00] I would add to what you just said is make sure that what you’re looking at is actually human has been done in human studies.

I get people sending me a lot of articles and they’re really excited because they’ve seen a headline in the news and a lot, and the news. A lot of times they want to report on things that sound even more exciting than they actually are. It’s hilarious irony, right? Researchers are always hedging, like these results suggest there may be a relationship, but further studies are needed.

And then, but like that’s what the researcher says and what the person, the journalist hears is. New perfect treatment that’s gonna cure arthritis. I’m like, it’s whoa. We have two different styles of communication here. So a lot of times people will send you things like, look, they’re gonna cure ra.

And it was like one study with one mouse where they like took the cells out and put them into a Petri dish and you’re like, Ooh, that is so far from applying, right? 

Dr Linda Li: Yeah. Yeah. That so that is so true. You also bring in a really good point that, [00:31:00] sometimes when you see social media, it’s almost like you want to take a little pause and ask the question, is that an actual study or is it just a headline?

Cheryl Crow: Yeah. Yeah. 

Dr Linda Li: Social media are oftentimes over oversimplify things. They cherry pick the results, like you said.

And overstate conclusions.

A simple rule that I would suggest is that, the more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the evidence that you need, to that you should expect to back it up.

If you don’t see that backup up evidence to back up what the claim is, be very cautious about what you’re looking at. 

Cheryl Crow: It’s, and I think both Eileen and I have gone through this before where it almost can feel a little bit demoralizing at times when we try so hard to be evidence informed and, but evidence based.

And then we’ll see someone like, I don’t know why. It’s always the tart cherry juice that gets to me where someone, there’s this guy that on TikTok, he has [00:32:00] over like 2 million views on this video about tart cherry juice and everyone’s so excited about it and it makes me feel. So bad because, or makes me feel, it makes me feel sad for the misinformation.

It also I think as providers that there’s also, like for me as an occupational therapist. It’s hard when you want, I want there to be a quick fix. I want for myself as a patient and as an ot, there to be a quick fix. But there’s not, and it feels like I’m constantly in this position of dashing people’s hopes.

But what I try to do is say, look like the, anyway, so that, that’s my own existential crisis. But point being, it’s un unfortunately the thing that might feel the most hopeful to you as a patient, which is like someone telling you there’s a simple fix or quick cure, is not usually what is. Long term gonna work for people.

Eileen Davidson: We have one question we always ask at the end, and it is in one sentence, what is the most important takeaway you’d like someone to take from this episode?

Dr Linda Li: Look for the [00:33:00] most reputable resources and keep yourself informed. It will really add value to manage your arthritis. 

Cheryl Crow: I love that and definitely go to the show notes to see more specific links if you wanna start following some of these or going to these pages. If people want to connect with you or learn more, where do you recommend that they go?

Dr Linda Li: Well, my office is at Arthritis Research Canada, so you can always find me there and I can I’ll leave you a link for the listeners to to reach me. 

Cheryl Crow: Perfect. Thank you so much. 

Dr Linda Li: Thank you. 

Eileen Davidson: Amazing. And thank you again for listening to another episode of Rumor Has It. 

Cheryl Crow: And don’t forget to check out the full show notes on the Arthritis Life website, my arthritis life.net for a full transcript plus video of our conversations.

Eileen Davidson: We would also love to hear what you think about this episode. Shoot us an email or comment on social media. 

Cheryl Crow: Alright, [00:34:00] thanks again, Linda, Dr. Li, and bye-bye for now. Bye bye, . 

​

Add comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *