Misinformation Alerts
Knowing what misinformation is being shared can help you generate effective messaging.
These insights are based on a combination of automated media monitoring and manual review by public health data analysts. Media data are publicly available data from many sources, such as social media, broadcast television, newspapers and magazines, news websites, online video, blogs, and more. Analysts from the Public Good Projects triangulate this data along with other data from fact checking organizations and investigative sources to provide an accurate, but not exhaustive, list of currently circulating misinformation.
Misinformation Alerts
Knowing what misinformation is being shared can help you generate effective messaging.
These insights are based on a combination of automated media monitoring and manual review by public health data analysts. Media data are publicly available data from many sources, such as social media, broadcast television, newspapers and magazines, news websites, online video, blogs, and more. Analysts from the Public Good Projects triangulate this data along with other data from fact checking organizations and investigative sources to provide an accurate, but not exhaustive, list of currently circulating misinformation.
Alerts are categorized as high, medium, and low risk.
- High risk alerts: Narratives with widespread circulation across communities, high engagement, exponential velocity, and a high potential to impact health decisions. Are often more memorable than accurate information.
- Medium risk alerts: Narratives that are circulating in priority populations and pose some threat to health. Potential for further spread due to the tactics used or because of predicted velocity. Often highlights the questions and concerns of people.
- Low risk alerts: Narratives that are limited in reach, don’t impact your community, or lack the qualities necessary for future spread. May indicate information gaps, confusion, or concerns.
A popular website known for publishing misinformation is claiming that a CDC study found that masks do not make a statistically significant difference in COVID-19 transmission rates. The CDC study referenced focused on mask mandates, not mask effectiveness, and found that mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in cases and deaths within 20 days of implementation.
Recommendation: 
In January, the WHO issued a notice reminding laboratory technicians to interpret positive PCR test results alongside clinical observation, patient history, and exposure to known contacts to reduce the chance of a false positive COVID-19 test. A video recently shared on conspiracy theory sites features a physician and former state senator who claims this was an admission by the WHO that COVID-19 case numbers are being inflated. This is false. According to health authorities, PCR tests are the gold standard of diagnostic tests, and while false positives do happen, they are rare. Furthermore, experts believe COVID-19 cases have actually been undercounted.
Recommendation: 
An article shared widely claims that COVID-19-related lockdowns are responsible for more deaths in Canada than the virus itself. The article references a report from Statistics Canada, which reviews indirect consequences of the pandemic, such as overdose deaths. Serious issues such as delayed medical procedures, increased substance use, increases in number and severity of mental health conditions, delaying of critical social and educational milestones in children, and more, are occurring. However, these issues represent part of the devastating toll of a pandemic, in addition to the morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19 directly. The interconnected societal impact caused by pandemics is why global health and public health emergency experts have consistently argued for improved pandemic preparedness and response. When a pandemic hits, mask wearing, testing, contact tracing, quarantines and lockdowns, and when possible mass immunization, are the most effective means of protecting the most people. Public health pandemic protocols are associated with negative outcomes, but they are not themselves the cause, the pandemic is. Public health measures are employed out of necessity, until the immediate threat of large-scale death has passed, not arbitrarily.
Recommendation:
Reports of a 39-year-old Utah mother who died four days after taking the second dose of the Moderna vaccine are circulating on social media. The individual reportedly passed away after a brief battle with liver failure, and the woman’s family members report believing the death was linked to her vaccination in local media. While an autopsy report is pending as of March 12, 2021, a website known for sharing conspiracy theories is capitalizing on the incident to claim a causal relationship between her death and vaccination. As of March 12, 2021 there are no deaths in the US linked to COVID-19 vaccination. This unfortunate incident is not misinformation itself, but is being used to promulgate misinformation.
Recommendation:
According to various news sources, Russian Intelligence has been involved in a coordinated disinformation campaign to generate fear and resistance toward COVID-19 vaccines developed and funded by Western nations. Websites that have been linked to Russian intelligence services focus on common fears around COVID-19 vaccines, including their safety, efficacy, and risk of side effects.
Recommendation:
Reports are circulating that in the UK, 35 people have become deaf and 25 have become blind after taking the Pfizer and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines. This information was based on the UK’s adverse events reporting system called Yellow Cards, which is a self-report system similar to the CDC’s VAERS system. As of March 12, 2021 there is no evidence that either vaccine causes blindness or deafness in recipients. This report follows a trend of using self-reported adverse event data to create false causal conclusions about a vaccine's effects.
Recommendation:
Children's Health Defense, a US-based nonprofit known for its vaccine skepticism, led by well-known vaccine skeptic Robert F Kennedy, Jr., has released a documentary film titled "Medical Racism: The New Apartheid." The documentary focuses on the legacy of unethical treatment of Black communities and individuals in the United States by the medical and public health fields, promoting the idea that the government has a long history of experimenting on the Black community and therefore generally should not be trusted. The film suggests vaccines are a form of "medical abuse" of people of color. The film is being widely shared by anti-vaccine, anti-science, anti-government, and conspiracy groups. Accompanying the film are readymade marketing materials, such as shareable images, that claim pharmaceutical companies are targeting communities of color. Leaders of the anti-vaccine movement openly discuss their intention to target Black communities for conversion to their views. Anti-vaccine leaders have in recent years made appearances at Black events for social justice, and spoken with Black community leaders and to Black community based organizations.
Recommendation:
A post seen by many on Facebook calls into question the safety of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, based on the claim that the company was aware that for decades, their talcum powder products contained cancer-causing asbestos. While Johnson & Johnson has faced lawsuits regarding traceable amounts of asbestos in their raw talcum powders produced from 1971 to the early 2000s, their baby powder products are unrelated to the company’s COVID-19 vaccine. This post attempts to generate distrust in the company’s ability to produce any safe product. This line of argument first appeared on social media in early 2020, and has since resurfaced after FDA authorization of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.
Recommendation: 
Tweets are claiming that people of color are being offered an "inferior" Jonhson & Jonhson vaccine, pointing to its apparent lower overall efficacy when compared to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which have been reaching predominately white communities. Others have built upon this narrative by predicting that people of color will be predominately given the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and therefore disproportionately suffer from COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality. While the vaccine has a lower efficacy rate than Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, it is 100% effective in preventing hospitalization or death. The three separate studies that determined the efficacy of the three vaccines, while definitively showing the vaccines are safe and effective, are also not entirely comparable; Pfizer and Moderna tested for any symptomatic Covid infection, while Johnson & Johnson tested for protection against moderate to severe illness after one dose. The studies also occurred in different regions and at different time points, with the Pfizer and Moderna studies occurring before some of the new worrying variants were widely circulating. The Johnson & Johnson single-shot vaccine is easier to store, as it does not require extreme refrigeration, and easier to administer, as it requires only a single dose. These characteristics make it easier to distribute to harder to reach communities, many of whom have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
Recommendation:
Posts in social media claim that women who received a COVID-19 vaccine are now showing swollen lymph nodes indicative of breast cancer. Swollen lymph nodes under the arms are a normal, possible side effect of vaccination. The Society of Breast Imaging now recommends scheduling mammograms four to six weeks following COVID-19 vaccination to avoid an unnecessary biopsy. Medical staff are now also being advised to ask women scheduled for mammography whether or not they have received a COVID-19 vaccine, in order to pre-empt any concern.
Recommendation:
Alerts are categorized as high, medium, and low risk.
- High risk alerts: Narratives with widespread circulation across communities, high engagement, exponential velocity, and a high potential to impact health decisions. Are often more memorable than accurate information.
- Medium risk alerts: Narratives that are circulating in priority populations and pose some threat to health. Potential for further spread due to the tactics used or because of predicted velocity. Often highlights the questions and concerns of people.
- Low risk alerts: Narratives that are limited in reach, don’t impact your community, or lack the qualities necessary for future spread. May indicate information gaps, confusion, or concerns.
Vaccine Misinformation Guide
Get practical tips for addressing misinformation in this new guide. Click image to download.
Vaccine Misinformation Guide
Get practical tips for addressing misinformation in this new guide. Click image to download, or see highlights.