Examining the Intersection of Misinformation Research and the Raw Milk Movement

In a stark turn of events, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released its comprehensive report on scientific misinformation just as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. assumed leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services, creating what many experts describe as a dramatic shift in how government communicates scientific information.

The National Academies report, “Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science,” represents the culmination of work by leading experts examining how false scientific claims spread and impact public health. Since 1863, these reports have provided objective analysis to guide policy decisions on complex challenges.

Yet the timing could hardly be more ironic. Kennedy, long known for his anti-vaccine positions, now leads the department responsible for the nation’s public health guidance. Under his leadership, the administration has initiated sweeping changes to established scientific communication channels.

Recent months have seen unprecedented alterations to public health messaging. The CDC rewrote its vaccine safety webpage to suggest vaccines might cause autism, contradicting decades of scientific consensus. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, reconstituted with Kennedy allies, has voted to roll back hepatitis B vaccine recommendations for newborns and discontinued support for the combined mumps, measles, rubella, and varicella vaccine.

Further troubling developments include the release of a “Make America Healthy Again” report containing AI-generated citations, the cancellation of grants to the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the dismissal of senior officials who challenged these new directives.

These changes stand in stark contrast to global scientific consensus. The World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety responded by releasing a new review of 31 studies reaffirming no causal link between vaccines and autism exists.

The National Academies report defines misinformation about science as “information that asserts or implies claims inconsistent with the weight of accepted scientific evidence at the time.” The report emphasizes that misinformation is not merely a failure of individual understanding but a systems problem arising from interactions among individuals, communities, institutions, and media.

Social media platform design, economic incentives favoring sensational content, and historical inequalities in information access all contribute to the problem. Misinformation can originate from corporations, governments, advocacy groups, alternative health sources, journalists, university communications offices, or individual users.

The report acknowledges strong evidence that exposure to scientific misinformation produces false beliefs, though drawing direct links between these beliefs and subsequent behaviors remains challenging. Research in this area has been predominantly short-term, focused on self-reported intentions rather than observed actions, and heavily concentrated on COVID-19 and vaccination topics.

Notably, the report highlights that misinformation’s harms disproportionately affect already disadvantaged communities, who often have less access to accurate, culturally relevant scientific information while facing greater exposure to lower-quality content. Social media content moderation efforts have historically focused primarily on English-language material, leaving significant gaps in other communities.

For solutions, the report examines individual-level interventions like prebunking, debunking, accuracy prompts, and media literacy initiatives. While these show promise in controlled settings, their effects tend to be modest and diminish over time. Structural approaches—supporting quality journalism, increasing platform transparency, strengthening public agencies’ communication capacity, and exploring regulatory tools—are noted, though with less robust evidence behind them.

One of the report’s most significant recommendations centers on community-based organizations (CBOs). Local businesses, faith groups, and media are “particularly well positioned” to identify information needs and fill gaps in scientific understanding within their communities. The report suggests funders and professional societies invest in these trusted local actors and proposes building an independent consortium to curate high-quality scientific information.

However, critics note the report’s framing of “misinformation” may inadequately address the current political dynamics. What’s happening now extends beyond individual false claims to what some describe as a health-populist movement with the explicit aim of redefining what “science” the government will endorse. The report doesn’t fully address how misinformation campaigns can be weaponized to delegitimize scientific institutions and experts themselves.

As federal agencies shift their messaging under new leadership, the report’s emphasis on community-based organizations becomes even more critical. These local, trusted entities may now serve as essential infrastructure for scientific resilience rather than mere complements to federal guidance.

Evidence-based influencers and collectives are emerging to fill communication gaps, with some health officials forming alliances to operate independently of federal authorities. These developing networks may represent the future of trustworthy scientific communication in an increasingly fractured information landscape.