husband & I have become expert at researching this sort of stuff, even though it really is easy. We've got a few friends each who tend to broadcast this sort of stuff in a panic (or in excitement) and then when we send them our more considered response, we ask them to contact everyone they sent it to, with a retraction. We've also suggested that people IGNORE the blackmailing pleas to "send this to ten of your best friends urgently or you cannot call yourself a friend" type of messages at the end.
It's important to THINK first, then check it out.
We've tried to teach them. But what has happened? Perhaps it's a second choice, but they send the emails to us first, asking our opinion. Well' at least they're not broadcasting it.
The way to check the validity of these emails is to look for a particularly distinctive part of the message. If it mentions a person's name, that can be a good start.
For example, here is an example from a recent email of this type, it's about the fourth indicator of strokes - the tongue. Here is one of the first sentences - "Blood Clots/Stroke - They Now Have a Fourth Indicator, the Tongue".
Now this alone could be enough to do a search. These emails get forwarded a lot, and forwarded again. IN the process some people along the way will change a few words here or there either to make it more readable, or to correct what they perceive as a spelling mistake, or perhaps to make it seem even more personally relevant in order to increase the chance of you sending it on. For example, if the sender really feels strongly about the message and is desperate to ensure it gets sent further, but is concerned that people won't pay enough attention, they may add a personal anecdote. "Yu may remember my friend Cheryl - well, this happened to her only last week. So PLEASE forward this on, it can save lives."
The entreaty doesn't increase the chance of this being true.
So, back to our choice phrase - try to pick one you feel has a low risk of having been manipulated along the way. So if using a fragment that has someone's name in it doesn't get you any useful info, then try another phrase.
Next - plug the phrase into Google, but BETWEEN DOUBLE QUOTE MARKS. If you don't use quote marks, the phrase "Blood Clots/Stroke - They Now Have a Fourth Indicator, the Tongue" will look for all documents that have the words "blood", "clots/stroke", "they", "now" and so on somewhere in the document. These occurrences could be widely separated. Included in your hits will be a lot of "noise", documents such as "the viscosity of the blood can have an impact to the extent of clots/stroke. Doctors now believe that the use of blood thinners is often inappropriate; they feel that further investigations are warranted..."
You get the idea.
But if you put it into Google with double quote marks on either side of the quote, then Google will search for just that string of words where they occur in just that configuration.
Use this technique in other situations too. Let's say you're having a conversation and someone says, "I can never remember the second verse of 'Advance Australia Fair', that idiotic Aussie national anthem," and you want to find out. If you simply Google "Advance Australia Fair" without double quote marks on either side, you will get a great deal of noise. And even if you get a reference to the song, it may only give the first verse. Or you might get the tune. But if you know a line form the first verse such as "Australians all let us rejoice" and you plug that in, you have a better chance of finding what you want.
It's a great technique for the kids when they are researching the 'Net for homework.
And really, it's all husband & I do, when we're researching a possibly dud email for our friends. And they think we're geniuses!
Marg