22nd June 2026
Health and medical professionals have an ethical responsibility to speak up when misinformation or disinformation has the potential to harm the health and wellbeing of communities. In many ways, it’s an extension of what we already do every day. We are all familiar with the idea of “speaking up for safety” in clinical practice, raising concerns, asking questions, and stepping in when something isn’t right. Challenging misinformation is simply that same principle applied at a broader, societal level. This responsibility is not political, it is grounded in professional codes of conduct, evidenced based practice and our duty to protect public health, humanity and our planet.
When public figures make claims that contradict well established scientific evidence whether about climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, deforestation, public health, Indigenous health equity or multiculturalism, those claims can influence public behaviour, trust and policy. If the health sector stays silent, we risk unintentionally legitimising misinformation and giving more oxygen to the “viral” naysayers who thrive in that vacuum.
Speaking up is not about engaging in partisan debate, it is about safeguarding the truth, promoting health literacy, and ensuring that vulnerable communities are not harmed by narratives that undermine their wellbeing. At its heart, it is about doing what we have always done as healthcare professionals: advocating for safe, healthy, and equitable communities.
Staying Anchored in Evidence, Not Emotion
The most effective way for health professionals and organisations to respond is to stay anchored in evidence rather than emotion, drawing on peer‑reviewed research, national health data and established scientific consensus. This includes the overwhelming evidence on planetary health: that climate change is accelerating extreme weather events, that deforestation is bringing people and wildlife closer together, which makes it easier for diseases to jump from animals to humans (known as zoonotic spillover), that biodiversity loss is destabilising ecosystems essential for human survival, and that pollution from air particulates to plastics is directly linked to disease burden.
Our responses should always be framed around community wellbeing, focusing on the health impacts of misinformation rather than the behaviour of any individual politician. Using calm, values‑based language helps keep the conversation grounded in shared goals, safety, fairness, healthy communities, and social cohesion.
Collaboration also matters. Joint statements from peak bodies carry weight and reduce the risk of individuals being singled out. Importantly, we need to communicate proactively, offering clear and accessible information before misinformation takes hold. We should amplify trusted messengers: clinicians, researchers, Elders, multicultural leaders, and community health workers, because these voices often resonate more deeply with the public than institutional statements alone.
We must avoid personalising the issue or attacking individuals; our focus should always remain on correcting claims, not criticising people, no matter how tempting that can be for any of us as human beings. We also need to be careful not to amplify misinformation unnecessarily, because repeating falsehoods, even to debunk them can unintentionally entrench them. Combative or dismissive language is equally unhelpful, as it polarises audiences and erodes trust, which is the opposite of what we’re trying to achieve. Our responses should never be framed as partisan. Effective health communication must stay firmly grounded in evidence, community wellbeing and professional ethics, not political identity, or allegiance.
The Barriers Are Real, But Not Insurmountable
There are, of course, some very real structural and cultural barriers that limit how loudly the health sector speaks up. Many organisations are understandably wary of being seen as “political” rather than simply communicating evidence, and that fear of politicisation can make people hesitant. There’s also the genuine risk of targeted harassment; clinicians and academics who challenge populist narratives can find themselves facing online abuse or reputational attacks, and we all saw how quickly the tables turned on health professionals during COVID-19. On top of that, our institutions, universities, health services, peak bodies, tend to be cautious by nature, with communication policies that err on the side of caution. Responding to misinformation also takes time, coordination, and expertise, all of which are stretched thin. Some organisations aren’t even sure whether responding to political commentary falls within their remit. If we are being really honest, there’s a layer of fatigue too. After years of pandemic‑related misinformation, many professionals are simply exhausted by the constant need to correct falsehoods. These barriers are real and understandable, but they’re not insurmountable. With coordinated, collective action, we can navigate them and still uphold our responsibility to protect community wellbeing.
Silence Creates a Vacuum
This current era offers some powerful lessons for all of us working in health, particularly around how quickly misinformation can take hold when it isn’t addressed, something that has become particularly evident in global political environments. We can see that silence creates a vacuum when health agencies hesitate to correct falsehoods, those narratives spread rapidly and became deeply entrenched.
We have also witnessed how politicising science erodes public trust; once scientific institutions are undermined, confidence in vaccines, climate science, environmental protection, and basic public health measures decline dramatically. The decision to pull funding from the World Health Organization had global consequences, disrupting coordinated pandemic responses, weakening surveillance systems, and sending a message that international health cooperation is somehow negotiable.
At the same time, it is obvious that trusted messenger’s matter. Local clinicians, community leaders, and non‑government health organisations often have far more influence than federal agencies when it comes to countering misinformation. Transparency is also essential; clear, consistent, and timely communication, even when the evidence is still evolving, and helps maintain trust in a very uncertain environment.
Perhaps the biggest lesson from recent years is that disinformation itself is a public health threat. The US experience showed that misinformation can directly and negatively contribute to preventable illness, death, and deep social division. For Australia, the takeaway is clear: our health communication must remain independent, evidence‑based and insulated from political pressure if we want to protect the wellbeing of our communities and our environment.
Bringing the Conversation Back to Health
As a health professional, the most constructive approach is to keep bringing the conversation back to evidence and the real‑world health impacts of the issues being raised.
Climate change is recognised by the World Health Organization as the greatest health threat of the 21st century. Deforestation increases the risk of zoonotic disease emergence. Biodiversity loss undermines food security and ecosystem stability. Pollution from air particulates to microplastics contributes to respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease and long-term chronic conditions. I could even be so bold as to state that my recent diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes may be indirectly linked to climate change, given the biologically plausible pathways through which heat exposure, air pollution and food system instability can increase insulin resistance.
We also know that multicultural, inclusive societies consistently achieve better health outcomes because belonging and safety matter. Indigenous‑specific programs exist because inequities exist and removing them would only widen the gap. Immigration, too, is not a burden but a cornerstone of Australia’s health workforce and economic resilience. I say that, not just professionally but personally, as I am proud to be the daughter of a Sicilian born father and I know firsthand the sacrifices and contributions migrant families have made to the multicultural Australia we cherish today.
Public broadcasters play a critical role in health communication, particularly during emergencies when clear, trusted information saves lives. By focusing on the health impacts rather than the political rhetoric, whether it’s climate denial undermining preparedness for heatwaves and fires, misinformation about deforestation and biodiversity loss weakening environmental protections, discouraging multiculturalism fuelling racism as a social determinant of health, abolishing Indigenous agencies removing culturally safe pathways, or cutting public broadcasting which weakens emergency communication, we keep the conversation embedded in what actually matters for community wellbeing.
Above all, we should emphasise shared values: compassion, fairness, safety and evidence‑based decision‑making. These are values that resonate across political lines and remind us that, at the end of the day, we all want healthy, safe, and thriving communities, and a thriving planet to sustain them.
The Media’s Role in a Healthy Information Ecosystem
The media plays a critical role in shaping public understanding, and responsible coverage is essential if we want to prevent misinformation from taking hold. This means avoiding amplifying false claims that should never be repeated without context and prioritising evidence‑based framing by drawing on experts in health, climate, Indigenous affairs, biodiversity, environmental science and multiculturalism.
It also requires proportionality; extreme or fringe views should not be presented as if they hold equal weight to scientific consensus. Instead of focusing on controversy for its own sake, coverage should highlight the real‑world impacts of misinformation on health, social cohesion, environmental stability and policy. Fact‑checking needs to be prominent, immediate, and accessible so that corrections don’t get lost in the noise, and importantly, the voices of those most affected: First Nations people, migrants, clinicians, environmental scientists, and public health experts should be centred in these conversations.
When the media takes this approach, it supports a more informed, healthier, and more cohesive community. One that is better equipped to protect both human health and planetary health.