Doctors and nurses frequently try to discourage their patients from turning to the internet for answers. And yet patients will continue to Google their symptoms and medications because the internet doesn’t require an appointment or a long wait, it is not rushed, it doesn’t judge, it doesn’t require a hefty co-pay and it often provides information that seems simple to understand.

Silicon Valley needs to own this problem. I am not a free-speech lawyer, but when human health is at stake, perhaps search engines, social media platforms and websites should be held responsible for promoting or hosting fake information.

The scientific community needs to do its part to educate the public about key concepts in research, such as the difference between observational studies and higher-quality randomized trials. Transparency is paramount to maintaining the public’s trust, and stories such as the one showing that researchers at the National Institutes of Health had solicited and received funding from big alcohol for a study on the benefits of moderate drinking demonstrate how quickly it can be undermined.

Finally, journalists can do a better job of spreading accurate information. News sites are more likely to cover catchy observational studies than randomized controlled trials, perhaps because the latter are less likely to produce surprising results. Such coverage can overstate benefits, claiming for example, that statins could cure cancer or help men have erections; it can also unduly emphasize potential risks, such as suggesting a misleading connection with dementia. (Although a small number of people appear to temporarily experience memory lapses after taking statins, no randomized controlled trial has found an association between the drug and cognitive impairments — and certainly not dementia.)

Presenting facts, though, might not be enough. The boomerang effect, in which people become even more entrenched in false beliefs when presented with facts, can also occur when medical misconceptions are challenged. To convince my patient that a statin was in her best interests, not only did I provide her the clinical rationale, but I also shared a personal story: After my dad had a heart attack, I urged his doctors to immediately start a statin at the highest dose. I told her that while a statin couldn’t guarantee that he wouldn’t have another heart attack, I wanted my dad to get his best shot at a healthy life. Only then did she agree to take the prescription.

To have any chance at winning the information war, physicians and researchers need to weave our science with stories. This is the only way to close the wedge that has opened up between medicine and the masses, and which is now being exploited by merchants of medical misinformation.

Haider Warraich, a fellow in heart failure and transplantation at Duke University Medical Center, is the author of the forthcoming “State of the Heart: Exploring the History, Science, and Future of Cardiac Disease.”

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.