This post was originally published on here
Science, by its nature, is evidence-based. Credit: Quality Stock Arts / Shutterstock
I am delighted to be returning to Euro Weekly News, which continues to deliver high-quality journalism and remains a trusted source of reliable information in today’s increasingly crowded digital landscape. While I have been away, there have been a number of genuinely exciting, and potentially life-changing advances in science and medicine. Increasingly, issues that may appear straightforward evolve into complex ethical debates. This is not necessarily a bad thing; however, the digital age has also created space for individuals with particular agendas to exert disproportionate influence.
Science, by its nature, is evidence-based. Hypotheses are tested, results are scrutinised, and findings undergo rigorous peer review before being made public. This structured process exists to ensure accuracy and reliability.
I was first drawn to this newspaper during the Covid pandemic, a period marked by uncertainty and genuine fear. That environment allowed pseudo-science and misinformation to flourish. At one point, we even witnessed a world leader suggesting that people infected with Covid might take bleach as a cure. By contrast, the science behind vaccine development is remarkably elegant if somewhat complex, though I readily acknowledge that it can be difficult to understand for those without a scientific background.
Similarly, proposals such as disinfecting sun loungers on our beaches were, from a scientific standpoint, misguided and an unnecessary waste of time and resources. The virus responsible for Covid is inactivated by ultraviolet light and becomes ineffective when dried out at the warm temperatures common in our region. At the time, however, this was not widely understood, and public discussion often referred to “killing” the virus in the same way we kill bacteria. A virus is not a living organism, so it cannot technically be killed. Fully explaining and justifying that statement would take considerable time, which illustrates the challenge faced by policymakers who must make decisions based on scientific principles they may not fully grasp.
In the months ahead, I plan to explore some of the more interesting developments in medicine and explain the science behind them in clear, accessible language. My aim is to provide context so that you can form your own informed opinions. I will also address common health issues that affect many of us, like blood pressure, heart disease, and seasonal influenza, and what can do to help keep yourself healthy.
Newspapers employ editors whose responsibility is to ensure that published content is fair, balanced, and accurate. Unfortunately, the same standards do not apply to the vast number of influencers and content creators who can disseminate their own versions of “truth” and facts online without oversight.
For these reasons, I am truly delighted to be back. While I am unable to respond to individual medical questions for legal and ethical reasons, I do welcome suggestions for topics you would like me to cover. Simply contact me at [email protected], and I will take it from there.
Wishing you a very happy, and healthy, 2026.
Dr Marcus StephanThe information provided in this column is for educational and informational purposes only, and does not constitute medical advice. It is not a substitute for a professional medical consultation, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.
