Why do headlines say coffee will harm you one week, but improve heart health the next?

Will new drugs really stave off dementia or are they offering false hope? Why are celebrities like Kim Kardashian telling you that you need a full body MRI? (You don’t.)

Who hasn’t pondered the benefits of adding turmeric to our lattes, or turned to Dr Google after being unable to get or afford a GP appointment?

One of the greatest privileges of my role as medical editor is hearing stories from readers, colleagues and friends who open up about their health experiences, often after reading stories in Guardian Australia.

They share stories of struggling to navigate the healthcare system, of not having their issues taken seriously, of hope and recovery, of falling for false claims and of caring for unwell loved ones.

The other privilege is the conversations with researchers, clinicians and health professionals who help to guide my team and I through complex evidence and health data.

It is through this combination of speaking to people with lived experience and to experts, combined with my own public health research, that my views towards people who reject science and shun conventional medical treatment have somewhat changed over the decade I have been reporting on health.

Don’t get me wrong – I understand the frustration towards (as the classic example) anti-vaxxers. I have at times felt it myself while caring for unwell loved ones who are relying on others to keep them safe.

Support systems for the most vulnerable break down with shocking consequences and governments and institutions can be wilfully ignorant to it. Scientific peer review can be flawed.

When the very experts and institutions we are told to have faith in fail us repeatedly, is it any wonder that some people start to look for answers elsewhere, sometimes in problematic places?

As well as insight into who the health system leaves out and leaves behind, we have seen the ever-growing, murky influence of harmful industries. These commercial actors – tobacco, food, alcohol, gambling and fossil fuels to name just a few – deliberately undermine health policies, influence science and lobby politicians and doctors to distract from the harm they cause.

I try not to judge people who fall for alternative (often useless, sometimes harmful or deadly) treatments. But without apportioning blame or responsibility to individuals, we do want to empower you, our readers, to feel more confident in navigating the complex world of medical science.

What makes a study design strong, and what do we really mean when we say “correlation doesn’t equal causation”? How do spurious actors raise doubt about science that’s strong, successfully promote science that’s untrue or weak or try to cast doubt on health policy?

That’s what this column, Antiviral, from Guardian Australia’s health and science team is all about.

From the serious questions to the more silly ones, we hope this new fortnightly column becomes a place where people feel safe to ask questions about the health and wellness news around them without being shamed.

We hope it inspires those seeking answers to find them in evidence-based, reputable places.

We will try to untangle the knots of health and medicine, acknowledge where we still don’t have the answers, and hopefully leave you feeling more health literate by the end of it.

• Melissa Davey is Guardian Australia’s medical editor. She has been reporting on health for more than a decade. She is in the final semester of her Master of Public Health and moonlights as a fitness instructor