Over 25% of people lie to get antibiotics—and their lies aren't even good

When you run a data centre you learn fast that the biggest risk isn’t a power outage or a rogue switch – it’s the human factor. The latest JAMA Network Open studies on antibiotic‑seeking behaviour are a textbook case of how misinformation, impatience and outright lying can bleed money, erode trust and, in a health‑focused industry, fuel a public‑health crisis. As a founder who’s been wiring up servers for a decade, I see a direct parallel: the same shortcuts that patients take to get a pill are the same shortcuts that cloud‑hungry startups take to chase hype, and both end up with broken systems and angry customers.

What the studies actually found

The researchers at the University of Utah surveyed more than a thousand adults online. After cleaning the data they ended up with 959 complete responses. Of those, 268 – roughly a quarter – admitted to misrepresenting symptoms to snag an antibiotic prescription for themselves or a child. The lies fell into three buckets: exaggerating existing symptoms, fabricating new ones, or doing both. The most common falsehoods were cold‑related complaints – fever, cough, sore throat – which, as any clinician knows, are viral and not treatable with antibiotics.

What’s striking is the success rate. Seventy‑seven percent of adult respondents and eighty‑seven percent of caregivers said their fib worked, meaning they walked out of the exam room with the drug they wanted. The study also broke down the lie‑types: 108 respondents exaggerated, 19 fabricated, and 141 did a mix of both. A separate caregiver cohort of 263 respondents showed a similar pattern, with 63 (27 percent) lying about a child’s symptoms.

Why patients lie – and why it matters to us

The motivations are textbook “consumer‑first” logic: they feel the illness is severe, they believe antibiotics are the only cure, they want a quick return to work or school, or they simply think they know better than the clinician. Younger patients and those who feel ignored by doctors were more likely to lie, as were people who doubted the reality of antibiotic resistance – treating it as a government scare tactic or a drug‑company price‑gouging ploy.

From a business‑risk perspective that’s a red flag. When customers think they can out‑smart the provider, they’ll test the system, look for loopholes, and ultimately erode the trust that underpins any long‑term relationship. In the health arena that translates to unnecessary prescriptions and rising resistance; in the hosting world it translates to customers gaming SLAs, demanding “instant” fixes, and bypassing best‑practice processes that keep services stable.

The cost of “honest” dishonesty

Prescribing antibiotics for viral colds does nothing for the patient’s immediate problem and adds risk – allergic reactions, gut microbiome disruption, and the potential for Clostridioides difficile infection, a CDC‑listed serious threat. The CDC’s latest antimicrobial‑resistance report cites nearly ten million infections and over fifty thousand deaths annually in the US. While a single unnecessary prescription may seem trivial, scale it across a population and you’ve got a public‑health liability.

In the data‑centre world the analogue is the “quick‑fix” patch that bypasses proper change‑management. It may solve a ticket today but introduces hidden fragility that can cause outages tomorrow. The same logic that drives a patient to demand an antibiotic – “I need to get back to work fast” – drives a CTO to push a half‑tested feature into production to meet a deadline, exposing the whole stack to failure.

What clinicians are doing (or not doing)

Jeffrey Linder of Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine called out the clinicians’ role, noting that most of the lies described “none of these are specific indications for antibiotics.” He highlighted that only urinary symptoms, among the eight categories surveyed, clearly justified an antibiotic. Linder warned that prescribing in response to a lie is itself a form of dishonesty, a “placebo” that can erode patient trust.

That mirrors what we see when support teams cave to a customer’s pressure: they give a band‑aid answer that doesn’t solve the underlying issue, and the client’s confidence in the service drops. The longer you keep feeding the lie, the deeper the trust gap widens, and the harder it becomes to re‑establish a rational, evidence‑based relationship.

The demographics of deception

The study found that those who lied tended to be younger and felt their symptoms weren’t taken seriously. They also had more underlying health conditions, were more accepting of lying as a behaviour, and reported needing help reading health‑related material. Conversely, respondents with higher antibiotic knowledge and a stronger aversion to taking antibiotics were less likely to lie.

In the hosting arena, the “younger, under‑served” segment often looks for cheap, DIY solutions and ends up misrepresenting their needs to get a “quick‑start” package. They may lack the technical literacy to articulate a real problem, so they over‑state symptoms (e.g., “my site is down 24/7”) to get a premium service. If you give in, you create a precedent that cheap, low‑skill customers can extract high‑margin services without paying the appropriate price.

Actionable takeaways for independent providers

First, double‑down on education. Just as better antibiotic literacy correlates with less deception, deeper technical literacy reduces the urge to game the system. Offer clear, jargon‑free guides that explain why certain fixes cost more or why some requests can’t be fulfilled without proper diagnostics.

Second, build verification into your workflow. In medicine that means rapid strep tests or urinalysis; in hosting it means automated health checks, log‑analysis, and tiered escalation that forces a factual basis before a premium service is deployed.

Third, protect the trust relationship by being transparent about why you can’t grant a request. Explain the risk, the cost, and the alternative. When patients understand that a lie leads to a pointless prescription, they’re less likely to lie. When clients see that a “quick‑fix” could destabilise their site, they’ll respect a more measured approach.

Finally, treat the “lie” as a symptom, not the problem itself. In the studies, the underlying drivers were feeling unheard, fearing loss of productivity, and mistrusting the system. Address those root causes – better communication, realistic expectations, and evidence‑based guidance – and the deception rate will drop, just as a well‑run support operation reduces the need for customers to chase after shortcuts.

Bottom line: honesty is a competitive advantage

The JAMA studies expose a simple truth: when people think the system is against them, they’ll lie to get what they want. Whether it’s a pill for a viral cold or a premium hosting tier for a mis‑configured site, the short‑term win comes at a long‑term cost. Independent providers who invest in education, verification, and transparent communication not only curb wasteful antibiotic use – they also protect their bottom line from the hidden costs of churn, outages, and reputational damage.

In a world awash with hype from hyperscalers and VC‑fueled “best practices” that crumble under real‑world load, the real differentiator is a no‑BS approach that respects the truth of the data. That’s the only way to keep the lights on, the servers humming, and the patients – or customers – healthy enough to stay loyal.

— Allan Ali, Founder

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: Ars Technica; arstechnica.com; Global1.News (31 October 2026).

By Allan Ali, Global1.News