Learning about tweeting and blogging : Who is really tweeting you?

I noticed that everydayhealth's article, below was tweeted. When I asked, privately for the Tweeter to do for better vetting, I was quickly unfollowed. I also wrote a critical blog. Given that I have studied this and have some decades of knowledge, and asked politely, I began to wonder. Of course, I am only just now learning about this social networking stuff. I may have overlooked some point of politeness? However, given the look and bias of this site (everydayhealth), I begin to realize that some people tweet and blog and are real people -- well let's say some are individuals doing it for pleasure, some for passion that might be business or non-profit -- and some are corporations.  Who was retweeting?  Was it the same people? the same ones who appeared to be putting out scientific data, but were really putting out a very skewed impression, self-serving to the monetary interests of medical industry/providers. I would like to know who is talking.

The same happens in the "association" world. For instance, SANE/Freeze was a citizen group organized around the mission of trying to limit nuclear war. The nuclear industry, in response got wives of executives and employees to form an "association." That is perfectly legal.  It was made to appear to politicians that the public was divided on the subject, with some citizens for and some against.  But they didn't seem like two equal, mirror image groups with just different viewpoints, to me. One was a citizen group; the other a front for a corporation.  Nowadays, I notice there are a variety of "autistic support groups."  Some are really coalitions of parents. One I know of, is really not, but it looks like it.  Even members may not know. But they depend on the information they get there.

Trouble is now that "the authorities" are often not the best sources of information. For instance, if you want scientific information, (peer reviewed journals, with dobule blind studies, and high number of respondents) for medical information, your doctor -- unless he or she is unusual-- is probably the least likely to know, as well as the most expensive to use. (I'm not panning doctors here. They are the best for diagnosis and wise guidance in treatment, but librarians are the best professionals for curating and finding information. I'm panning deceptive marketing by medical industry corporations.) AMA -- caught them denying scientific research was being done. Even JAMA and other medical journals, for instance, will admit "studies" that are not experiments and have very small Ns. Perhaps understandable given the difficulty of observing human subjects, but the practise would not fly in social sciences.

This is a long way of saying: information consumer, beware!  People who can't  or won't discuss, can't or won't be questioned, can't or won't give evidence, can't or won't look at their philosophical underpinnings, and can't or won't tell you who they are -- are giving you big red flags that they may be lying, stealing, killing, and or destroying.