Misinformation on Social Media Skews Public Perception of Science

In the world of public health, the decisions that shape vaccine schedules, pandemic responses, and national medical guidelines have long rested in the hands of expert committees and scientific advisors. While advisory committees—comprised of scientific experts within organizations like the CDC and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—have historically set the tone for evidence-based practice, Morgan McSweeney, PhD, social media and health influencer, discusses recommendation shifts and conflicting health information.

McSweeney stated that, for decades, the appointment of a Secretary of HHS who valued scientific analysis could be taken for granted. There have been few, if any, real safeguards to prevent a politically motivated appointee from sidelining expert committees, ignoring rigorous data, and reshaping national health policy by fiat.

As someone who creates health-related content, McSweeney also acknowledges his feelings on the heavy impact of social media’s amplification of the most emotionally charged voices—often those offering anecdotes or outrage over careful analysis. He states his concern is not just for the present but also for the repeatability of these patterns. Misinformation repeated online easily masquerades as truth, eroding the foundation of evidence-based medicine.

"Information about your health and about science and medicine that you see on social media is not necessarily the most accurate," he said. "It is the loudest. It's what is the most emotionally resonant with people. We know very clearly that content that is emotionally charged, particularly negative emotions that are based on anecdotes, just tends to perform better than content that is less emotionally charged that has more positive connotations."