Health misinformation and its consequences

The O'Brien Institute for Public Health was funded by a generous donation from David and Gail O'Brien to the University of Calgary, in 2014.  Smaller individual philanthropic contributions have been received since that time, and the University’s funding agreements ensure that all such donations preserve academic freedoms. 

The Institute is a support 'platform' for its more than 1,000 members; the Institute itself is a small financial enterprise (less than one million dollars in annual expenses) relative to the research operating funding secured by its members from external sources (greater than $60 million annually).  The majority of member funding is received as federal or provincial research grants that arise from competitions judged by independent academic peers.  These funding agencies and their grants also entrench academic freedoms. 

In the less than 10 per cent of cases where O’Brien Institute members receive funding from industry partners, meticulous legal agreements ensure that the funders remain completely detached from the research, and are unable to influence research outcomes.  The only concession sometimes made, away from complete academic freedom, is to delay releasing results publicly until the funder has had time to review thoroughly.

Yes, the COVID-19 vaccine is safe for pregnant and breastfeeding people, and there is strong evidence to support this.

• COVID-19 during pregnancy can be serious. Infection has been linked to increased risks of complications like premature birth, low birth weight, and newborns needing care in the NICU.
• The vaccine protects both the pregnant person and their baby. It reduces the risk of severe illness in the parent and lowers the chance of hospitalization for the baby in the first 6 months of life.
• The safety data is strong. Hundreds of thousands of pregnant and breastfeeding people around the world have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Surveillance and studies show no increase in miscarriage, stillbirth, or premature birth among vaccinated people compared to those who weren’t vaccinated.

In short, the vaccine is safe, effective, and offers important protection during pregnancy and while breastfeeding.

Informed consent isn’t just about ticking boxes or following a script. It’s about relationships and trust. For someone to give meaningful consent, they need to feel heard, respected, and informed in a way that makes sense to them, not just to the expert or clinician. That takes time, conversation, and sometimes, navigating moments of misunderstanding. True informed consent comes from a relationship where information is shared with care, and decisions are made together.

There’s no one-size-fits-all approach. Conversations about misinformation look different depending on who you're speaking with — a family member, a friend, or a coworker. What works in one relationship might fall flat in another. A good starting point is curiosity and humility. Ask questions. Try to understand where they’re coming from before jumping in with facts. And remember: you're more likely to make progress by listening and building trust than by winning an argument.

Start by remembering this is a conversation, not a debate. People who are hesitant about vaccines are trying to make the best decision they can, often with a lot of competing voices in their ear. Facts matter, but trust matters more. You’re not just offering information, you’re showing your intentions. Be open, be honest, and be prepared to stay in the conversation. It's about building trust, not just delivering facts.

Is it responsible for public health experts to say vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ when there are government programs that compensate people injured by vaccines?

It’s a fair question and it’s important to recognize that no medical treatment is 100% risk-free. Most people don’t think in absolutes. Instead, they ask: “Is this safe enough for me and my family?” or “Is this effective enough to protect us?” Vaccine safety and effectiveness are based on what the evidence tells us: for the vast majority of people, the benefits far outweigh the risks. Programs that compensate people who experience rare side effects don’t mean vaccines aren’t safe, they mean we take safety seriously. What matters most is whether people trust the information and the people providing it.

Vaccine safety in Canada is rigorously monitored through both passive and active surveillance systems. Passive systems allow health professionals and the public to report any adverse events following immunization, regardless of whether the event is eventually linked to the vaccine. Active systems, particularly in pediatric care, proactively track and investigate health outcomes following vaccination. Specialized clinics, such as the Special Immunization Clinics across Canada, provide expert assessments of rare or severe reactions. The data show that serious adverse events are extremely rare, and no child deaths in Canada have been attributed to COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, adverse event data is publicly available and consistent across international jurisdictions, reinforcing the transparency and safety of the system.

A worrisome trend is that misinformation has increasingly become intertwined with identity and emotion, making it harder to correct through facts alone. Social media algorithms amplify outrage and fear, reinforcing echo chambers and political polarization. People are often entrenched in their beliefs and less open to changing their views, even when presented with strong evidence. 

However, there are reasons for optimism. Healthcare professionals remain highly trusted, and public interest in evaluating information critically is growing. There's also increasing collaboration between researchers, health communicators, and communities, along with promising new strategies, like pre-bunking and narrative framing, that are proving effective in combatting misinformation.

There is no single authority that declares what is or isn’t misinformation. Rather, it involves a process of evaluating the strength of the evidence, the degree of scientific consensus, and the evolving context of knowledge. Science is a self-correcting process. What is considered accurate today may be revised tomorrow as better evidence emerges. Labeling something as misinformation is not about censorship—it’s about helping people critically assess the quality and credibility of information. Meaningful engagement, especially around contested topics, requires compassion and curiosity. Focusing less on “who’s right” and more on understanding why people believe what they do can create space for honest, respectful dialogue.

While pharmaceutical companies do conduct vaccine trials, vaccine safety data is not solely produced or evaluated by them. Canada and other countries have independent systems for monitoring safety that include:

• Passive reporting by healthcare providers and active surveillance programs like Canada’s IMPACT network and Special Immunization Clinics.
• Independent investigations into reported side effects, which are assessed for actual causality.
• Transparent, publicly available data from Canada, the U.S., the U.K., and Europe, all showing extremely low rates of serious side effects.
• Independent academic research, often funded by public agencies like the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), where the pharmaceutical company has no role in deciding which projects are funded or what results get published.

All peer-reviewed studies include clear disclosures of funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest. Academic researchers are not employed by pharmaceutical companies, and their relationships with funders must be verifiable. This transparency is built into the research process, and it's exactly why public conversations like the one at our Town Hall are so important. They help people build the skills to critically evaluate where their health information is coming from and how to assess its trustworthiness.

Canada’s rigorous oversight systems, combined with global data trends, support the continued safety of vaccines. As of late 2023, no deaths have been causally linked to COVID-19 vaccination in children in Canada.

Changing beliefs requires more than facts. It requires empathy, patience, and trust. Productive dialogue focuses on:

• Finding common ground, like shared goals (e.g., wanting to protect our families).
• Listening with empathy rather than trying to “win” the argument.
• Understanding that entrenched beliefs are often emotional and identity-based.
• Avoiding the “deficit model,” which assumes people just need more data to change their minds.

Respectful conversations must focus on emotional validation and understanding where people are coming from, not just presenting more data. Beliefs aren't easily changed through facts alone; it takes trust, shared values, and genuine human connection.

We also need to get better at understanding the motivations and perspectives behind differing views. Researchers must improve their communication skills and help the public see that their work is motivated not just by science, but by a deep commitment to improving population health. Greater transparency across our institutions, and continued engagement on hard and divisive topics, are essential. Open science and public dialogue both play a vital role in rebuilding trust.