Millions in ad spending tied to unreliable outlets
In 2021, during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy warned that health misinformation posed a serious threat to public well-being. He called limiting its spread a “moral and civic imperative.”
Despite those warnings, new research from Yale University shows that health and government organizations have collectively spent tens of millions of dollars advertising on websites known to promote health misinformation. The study found that between 2021 and 2024, more than $35.7 million in advertising from health and government groups appeared across 11 such sites, accounting for over 10% of their advertising revenue.
How the websites were identified
Researchers partnered with NewsGuard, an organization that evaluates the credibility of news and information websites. NewsGuard’s assessments, conducted by trained journalists, frequently cite health misinformation as a leading reason for labeling sites unreliable.
Common misinformation themes include false vaccine claims, promotion of unproven remedies and content that undermines established scientific consensus. NewsGuard’s chief operating officer, Matt Skibinski, noted that some misinformation erodes trust in science, while other claims can be directly harmful.
Wellness ads dominate spending
The largest category of health advertising on these sites came from sellers of nonprescription wellness products. Supplements marketed for energy, digestion, weight management and cognitive support accounted for more than $19 million in spending during the study period, representing nearly 6% of total ad revenue for the 11 sites analyzed.
However, advertising also came from established nonprofit organizations and government agencies. The research, published in JAMA Network Open, found that even reputable institutions contributed to the overall funding stream supporting misinformation platforms.
Reputable organizations respond
The American Heart Association and the Alzheimer’s Association were among the nonprofits identified as having ads placed on such websites. Each reportedly spent less than $25,000 per year on average during the study period.
Both organizations emphasized that any such placements were unintentional and resulted from automated digital advertising systems. They noted that while filtering tools are used to avoid harmful content, the complexity of digital ad networks can limit full transparency over site placement. When problematic placements are identified, they said, corrective action is taken.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated that it is prioritizing evidence-based science and responsible use of taxpayer funds, though it did not provide details on specific changes to advertising practices.
Impact remains uncertain
Experts caution that the direct effect of these advertising placements is difficult to measure. Dr. Anne Cappola of the University of Pennsylvania said that pairing credible organizations with unreliable sites is problematic in principle, but the real-world influence on public perception is unclear.
She emphasized that trust in science and critical thinking are central to combating misinformation. While systemic changes to digital platforms may help, she suggested that conversations in clinical settings and trusted personal relationships often play a more effective role in shaping informed health decisions.