Perceived benefits:
(1) It may support a bias or belief.
(2) It may appear to be helpful by reporting a potential risk.
(3) It provides a simple explanation when none is readily available, saving a lot of bother.
Downsides:
(1) It may be misinformation, which can lead to confusion or which can discredit the source as unreliable.
(2) It can cause an intervention that may be beneficial not to be given, thereby harming the patient.
(3) It may cause the real problem to be missed.
(4) It can make identifying a real risk more difficult if there are numerous trivial associations.
From a diagnostic perspective, blaming everything on the intervention is sensitive but not specific, resulting in a poor positive post-test predictive value.
Before accepting causation it is important to pursue a disciplined analysis, as outlined in the previous section.
Similar hazards may result from indiscriminate belief for an intervention being beneficial.
