I am an anxious, nerdy, introverted, camera-shy PhD-prepared scientist who studies health-care delivery. Last week, I launched a social media channel across almost all platforms. I shocked myself.
But I have a very good reason for starting this channel – because the battle for science to shape public policy and personal health decisions is being lost. Not because of a lack of evidence or poor science but because the most effective communicators today are not scientists. They are influencers, content creators and well-branded personalities who have mastered social media storytelling.
The problem? Many of them spread misinformation at a scale and speed that evidence-based medicine simply cannot match. If we, as scientists and health professionals, don’t rethink how we communicate, we risk further marginalization in public discourse, allowing falsehoods to shape policies, behaviours and health outcomes.
False information spreads six times faster than the truth on social media, according to research published in Science. This isn’t just a flaw in social media algorithms, it’s a product of human evolution.
For hundreds of thousands of years, human survival depended on quickly identifying potential threats, sharing compelling stories and aligning with social groups. Our brains are wired to prioritize information that is novel, emotionally charged and socially relevant.
Today, social media hijacks this ancient system, favouring viral content that triggers fear, anger and surprise over nuanced, complex and slow-moving scientific consensus.
The results?
A 2024 study found that more than 50 per cent of the most-viewed mental health content on TikTok contained inaccurate or misleading claims. Similarly, a study on the top 1,000 TikTok videos with a #mentalhealth tag found that one-third of videos offering medical advice were misleading – yet these videos outperformed accurate ones in engagement.
Misinformation isn’t winning because people are ignorant. It’s winning because our brains are evolutionarily tuned to find it more compelling.
The COVID-19 pandemic was a stark reminder that this is not a crisis of scientific rigor – it’s a crisis of communication. While researchers meticulously compiled data, debated methodologies and issued cautious statements, misinformation spread effortlessly. A TikTok or YouTube short featuring a charismatic speaker with an emotionally compelling (but scientifically baseless) claim could reach millions in hours. Meanwhile, public health agencies, constrained by bureaucracy and outdated communication strategies, struggled to respond effectively.
And it’s not just about vaccines or pandemics – misinformation about ADHD, cancer treatments, weight loss, fertility and chronic disease management thrives online.
Science isn’t losing the battle because it’s wrong – it’s losing because it’s being out-communicated.
When scientific literacy is low and algorithm-driven platforms reward engagement over accuracy, health professionals are at a structural disadvantage.
The consequence? Distrust in medical expertise, rising public health risks and a generation learning about their bodies not from physicians, but from influencers who may prioritize views over veracity.
So, what must change?
- Publishing data is no longer enough. Research must be translated into engaging, digestible content that meets people where they are – on social media. This does not mean sacrificing accuracy for sensationalism (at least not entirely). It does mean embracing storytelling, relatability and accessibility.
- Scientists and clinicians must receive media training. In today’s landscape, creating a 60-second TikTok should be considered an essential skill for researchers or members of their teams. Universities and health organizations must train researchers to navigate social media, counter misinformation swiftly and produce compelling content that resonates with the public.
- We need interdisciplinary collaboration. Scientists must work alongside journalists, digital creators and communication strategists to amplify evidence-based messages. The success of science communicators like Dr. Kat Arney (genetics), Dr. Jen Gunter (women’s health), and Dr. Tim Caulfield (misinformation debunking) shows there is an appetite for engaging, evidence-driven content. But these individuals are the exception, not the norm.
Science isn’t losing the battle because it’s wrong – it’s losing because it’s being out-communicated.
If we fail to adapt, the consequences will be dire:
– Vaccine hesitancy will grow.
– Preventable diseases will surge.
– Public trust in medicine will continue to erode.
It is not enough for scientists to generate knowledge. We must fight for its survival in the public sphere.
We have no choice but to level up – because those with less regard for the truth already have.
The question is: Are we ready to do what it takes to be heard? I’ll let you know my answer in a few months. Now I’m not just Anna Durbin, scientist, I am also DoctorDebunk on Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and Facebook. And I am terrified.

There should be more caution exercised in accepting the overwhelming use of lies and misinformation by the social media. In fact, this deception should be strongly opposed! We have gone through the phase of having to label the use of cigarettes’ as “dangerous to our health”. There should be a label branded upon almost all of the TV adds. VIEWERS SHOULD REALIZE THAT WE ADVERTISERS ARE MOTIVATED BY THE NEED TO SELL OUR PRODUCTS. DECEPTION AND EXAGGERATION ARE FUNDIMENTAL TOOLS OF OUR SALESMANSHIP. VIEWERS BEWARE! Most unfortunately, this general trend is prevalent even in the fields of healthcare and medicine.
censorship and compelled speech, such as what we witnessed during COVID naturally instills images reminiscent of Orwellian ‘ministry of truth’. You worry about the harms of misinformation when meanwhile, it was collusion of big pharma and government which brought about the complete manipulaiton of “science”
Science is no longer respected , now it is just a tool to push a narrative and control.
Perhaps some deeper reflection is in order? time “scientists” woke up and realized that the public is no longer the uneducated fools you depict us as. Rather, we have access to scientific databases and understand what is a quality study and what is junk science. We look at funding and bias and the size and duration of the study and understand how to grade evidence. Most importantly, we realize that “expert” opinion – that is now bought and paid for to the highest bidder – is the LOWEST form of evidence.
So again, perhaps look to yourselves and realize that the public trust is violated by abusive, deceptive “science” which enabled the greatest public health disgrace of all times = destructive COVID measures such as lockdowns that proceeded ahead without risk analysis and brought about unspeakable harms to those with mental health issues, substance abuse, those without luxuries such as the ability to work from home, those living with abusive partners/parents …in other words…those who were not part of the elite who devised such destruction while ignoring focused protection of high risk populations …am I bitter – VERY ; will I ever trust “science” and health authorties again = NEVER…. This is what you do to people when they are pushed to far and lied to.
Excellent article. Who knew the scientific-medical world would need to hire publicists and “influencers”? The general population has gradually been conditioned to respond more readily to glossy untruth than to dry, unadorned truth. It might feel odd putting on your show biz shoes at first, but if you want to reach people it’s important to speak to them in a language they understand.
Absolutely agree with you.
The author wrote:
“A TikTok or YouTube short featuring a charismatic speaker with an emotionally compelling (but scientifically baseless) claim could reach millions in hours.”
Scientifically baseless? Unlike the public health campaigns that proclaimed: the utility and efficacy masking; MANDATORY inoculations prevent one from acquiring covid and spreading covid (both statements categorically false); lock downs for all is much better than for those most vulnerable; the 6 foot separation rule (most laughable).
As the government (and their proxy Public Health ‘authorities’) continue to be less than truthful to us – we the people become inured to their dubious claims. We will distill the disparate messaging and pick out what’s good for us. You do you boo – and leave me alone.
You have an interesting sense of truthful. In a condition with only limited information and high time pressure with very high probability that incoming data will force you to change your initial estimate, what would you define as truth? My point here is that retrospective fact statements without context doesn’t get you very far.
I believe you have missed the point of the article. What Anna is telling us is that because of the dissemination of false information for political gain, the public is having an increasingly difficult time discerning fact from propaganda.
I don’t think that anyone would disagree with you that the pandemic could have been handled better than it was. I think that Anna would agree that muzzling those scientists who spoke about the risks of vaccine was wrong and led to the polarization that we face today about the COVID vaccine. People are entitled to know all the facts.
But here’s the thing Rickk, it is a scientific fact that masking can assist in reducing the spread of illness. If it didn’t, surgeons and other health professionals would not have been wearing masks for decades. And it is a scientific fact that vaccinations have saved millions of lives (small pox, tuberculosis, etc.) and that the relatively recent backlash towards vaccination has resulted in these deadly diseases beginning to make a comeback.
I think that most critical thinkers were and should be skeptical about vaccines that are rolled out so quickly, but in the circumstances the authorities probably tried to do the best they could with the information they had on a new and deadly virus. And in retrospect, it appears based on the data collected so far that the COVID vaccine has saved millions of lives.
Where the government failed us is by doing what this article is arguing against–only putting out what they wanted us to believe so we did what they said, regardless of whether it was all scientifically validated at the time.
In 1911 Prime Minister Borden foresaw how easy it was to corrupt and mislead in a democratic society by spreading false information. So he put in place structures and funding for an independent scientific community so decisions could be made on fact untainted by politicians. Because of this separation of science and state, Canada used to be looked to as the gold standard of scientific research.
Prime Minister Harper took down these safeguards and began the process of controlling, muzzling and politicizing science and scientists to facilitate the negation of the science related to climate change. He sought to address economic and political fallout from something Canada’s scientists were warning about since at least the 1950s. Prime Minister Trudeau did nothing to reverse this. And we can only expect worse in the future unless we demand the right to unbiased scientific information by bringing back independent scientific research which is insulated from private interests. I am not talking about doing away with private interest research. I am talking about having an environment where our government funds but insulates scientists from government influence so these scientists can research and report on the basis of science alone.
Citing the use of masks in the OR is hardly proof of their validity. First off, in many parts of Europe, only the surgical team directly working on the patient wears a mask; the rest of the staff in the OR are mask free since the gaps around a silly surgical mask do not decrease surgical site infection rates. Surgeons wear masks because of direct splash risk to themselves and due to wound contamination since they are 12 inches from a wound and if they were to cough inadvertently this could be a problem. However, some studies have found that a surgical mask- known to be contaminated within a few minutes of use, have been linked to possibly increasing surgical site infections.
Also, these are medical professionals long trained in the art of donning and doffing masks correctly (and even they screw up most of the time ) . Considering a mask is a filthy filter that, when swabbed in OR contamination studies, found the outside to be dirtier than the floor, with the inside 100xs dirtier than that this is a problem. Lay people mishandling masks, especially children, was a public health RISK not life saving as you have been assured by biased politicized “science” that used masks to evoke fear. I have ZERO faith in any health authority since the utter lies and deceit of COVID – put a mask on if you are actively sick and coughing – other than that, this virtue signalling rouse was an abusive disgrace. Sadly, a hoodwinked public never bothered to look at well conducted studies that rose above the observational junk that was pushed through by COVID zealots to validate this useless and destructive intervention.