The surge in pseudoscience threatens US public health policies
The erosion of evidence-based measures sparks urgent debate among scientists, lawmakers, and health advocates.
Today's Bluesky conversations in science and health reveal mounting tensions between evidence-based policy and the surging influence of pseudoscience. As legislative bodies, health organizations, and researchers clash over the direction of public health and science funding, the platform's decentralized voices capture a snapshot of societal crossroads—where trusted expertise is undermined and urgent calls for action grow louder.
Pseudoscience, Policy, and the Erosion of Public Health Protections
A central theme emerging today is the conflict between science-driven public health measures and the rise of anti-science sentiment, fueled by organized political campaigns and misinformation. The proliferation of anti-science bills in statehouses—targeting vaccines, food safety, and water fluoridation—highlights how conspiracy theories are gaining traction and threatening decades of medical progress. This normalization of anti-science perspectives has already led to declining vaccination rates and a resurgence of preventable diseases.
"The dumbest. I never thought we as a country would go backwards so fast. FML"- @lumenintenebris.bsky.social (4 points)
Scientific leaders and health experts are pushing back, emphasizing the need for policies grounded in evidence. Notably, criticism of the US Department of Health & Human Services' embrace of pseudoscience underscores the danger of political expediency overriding medical fact. These concerns are echoed by researchers such as Beth S Linas, PhD, who laments the sidelining of settled science on vaccines and the diversion of resources to fringe topics like chemtrails, and by Dr. Jonathan N. Stea, who warns against the "science-of-the-gaps" fallacy that justifies unsupported health claims.
"2025 and still oh-so-many people doing the 'I don't understand X so I'll just make up Y' routine."- @fs9.bsky.social (2 points)
Equity, Funding, and the Fight for Scientific Integrity
Funding priorities and equitable access to health remain contentious, with community frustration over the lack of support for vulnerable groups and scientific research. The debate around US aid distribution and science funding spotlights the disconnect between political decisions and the needs of those reliant on programs like SNAP or public health research. Meanwhile, public health organizations stress the importance of combating stigma and ensuring that marginalized communities have access to trustworthy information and vaccines, as seen in ongoing efforts to address mpox risks.
"I feel like if these guys saw the incomes of people that rely on stamps & saw who they support the perspective of truth that knowledge SHOULD give you would be hard to ignore."- @scarsandhearts.bsky.social (4 points)
The battle for scientific integrity extends beyond borders. Dr. Sandra Steingraber's interview ahead of testimony in Mexico draws attention to the global consequences of exporting hazardous technologies like fracking, advocating for legislative action informed by robust scientific evidence. The conversations also highlight the need for greater transparency and research, such as the debate over SSRI withdrawal in psychiatry, and the value of discovery-driven research exemplified by drone studies on narwhal behavior and genetic analysis of domesticated pumpkins.
Excellence through editorial scrutiny across all communities. - Tessa J. Grover