Health and Government Agencies Inadvertently Fund Misinformation Sites Through Million-Dollar Ad Campaigns

In 2021, as the Covid-19 pandemic raged across the United States, US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued a stark advisory about the growing threat of health misinformation. “Health misinformation is a serious threat to public health,” Murthy warned. “It can cause confusion, sow mistrust, harm people’s health, and undermine public health efforts.”

Yet even as health authorities raised alarms, a troubling contradiction was taking place: government agencies and health organizations were inadvertently funding the very websites spreading such misinformation through advertising dollars.

A new study published Wednesday in JAMA Network Open by Yale University researchers has uncovered that health and government organizations contributed more than 10% of advertising revenue received by websites promoting health misinformation between 2021 and 2024. These payments totaled $35.7 million across 11 misinformation-spreading websites during the three-year period.

The researchers collaborated with NewsGuard, an organization that employs trained journalists to evaluate websites for reliability, to identify platforms regularly publishing health misinformation. According to Matt Skibinski, NewsGuard’s chief operating officer, health misinformation represents one of the most common reasons websites receive unreliable ratings.

“Some of them are just undermining trust in scientific evidence,” Skibinski explained. “Some of them can be directly and immediately harmful.”

The study found that nonprescription wellness products represented the largest category of health-related advertising on these misinformation sites. Companies promoting supplements claiming to boost energy, support digestion, manage weight, or enhance brain function spent more than $19 million on advertisements, accounting for nearly 6% of total advertising revenue across the examined websites.

More concerning, however, was the discovery that reputable health organizations and government agencies were also contributing financially to these platforms. Both the American Heart Association and the Alzheimer’s Association appeared on the list, though each spent less than $25,000 annually on average during the study period.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was also identified as an advertiser on these platforms. When contacted, HHS stated that under new leadership, the agency is “doing things differently” by “prioritizing evidence-based science, responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and restoring credibility and trust with the American people,” though no specific examples were provided.

Both nonprofit associations expressed concern about the findings. The American Heart Association stated, “Any advertising placement on sites that publish misleading or inaccurate content is unintentional. When issues are identified, we review them promptly and take steps to strengthen controls and oversight going forward.”

The Alzheimer’s Association echoed this sentiment, explaining that despite safeguards, “the dynamic nature of digital advertising means ads may occasionally appear alongside content that does not align with our values or standards.” They emphasized that upon discovering such placements, they work with media partners to take corrective action.

Health communication experts note that these misaligned advertisements create particular concerns. “Advertisements from these organizations may enhance trust in misinformation or diminish trust in the government or health organization,” the Yale researchers wrote in their paper.

While the financial amounts from reputable health organizations may be relatively small compared to commercial advertisers, the impact remains difficult to quantify. Dr. Anne Cappola, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine and executive director of the Penn Medical Communication Research Institute, notes that the influence of such pairings is still not fully understood.

“In the abstract, you certainly don’t want to pair a credible organization with a non-credible website. But I’m also not sure what the impact is,” Cappola said.

She suggests that effectively combating health misinformation ultimately depends on two key factors: trust in science and critical thinking skills. These attributes are often best developed through personal interactions with healthcare providers or other trusted professionals rather than through mass media interventions.

“Can we make these big changes in how websites or how social media communicate things, or does it end up being at more personal levels that you are able to get people to critically think and understand,” Cappola said. “Because that website or that social media site, that’s not going to challenge them, to try to get them to understand, and to really think about what they’re saying or what they’re believing. But other people can.”