The Infodemic: Battling Misinformation in Public Health

Rivera acknowledged that while not always explicitly used, the term "leadership" gained significant weight in these fields following the pandemic.

She identified a personal mission to bridge the gap between academic and institutional scientific work and the public it serves. Rivera highlighted the isolation often associated with scientific research, expressing her desire to make it more accessible and understandable to a broader audience.

and internationally, where their authority is increasingly questioned. She pointed out that decisions influenced by misinformation can jeopardize personal finances, relationships, and community well-being.

She emphasized the need for data to inform policy and make systems available to the public, while stressing that such information should not be politicized. Rivera noted that her work, which forms the foundation of public health, often lacks support and, in some cases, faces direct attacks.

Rivera shared her experience of engaging with lawmakers and advocacy groups, describing it as courageous and audacious leadership. She underscored the critical importance of translating scientific language for policymakers and voters to ensure that diverse perspectives are represented in decision-making.

She explained that without clear communication of scientific concepts, there is a missed opportunity for comprehensive representation in policy. Rivera reflected on the practice of care, courage, and leadership in her work, particularly when political and personal stakes are high for her audience.

She asserted that she would not change her actions but would be remiss not to mention the challenges.

She views her communication efforts as a set of tools designed to enhance scientific literacy and understanding of complex issues, rather than to manipulate. Rivera emphasized that her goal is to empower individuals with the knowledge needed to navigate increasingly treacherous information environments.

Rivera clarified that she does not expect the public to retain all the biological and immunological details she must remember, but rather to gain essential tools for navigating today's hazardous information landscape. She highlighted a critical lesson for both information consumers and leaders in deciding when to speak up and when to remain silent.

She explained that her dedication to public health stems from its foundational principle of altruism: reducing harm, preventing disease, and enhancing opportunities for well-being. Rivera outlined the core mission of public health as improving overall health outcomes for communities.

Rivera argued that harmful health information challenges or jeopardizes the core principles of public health. She asserted that public health emergencies often involve two concurrent outbreaks: that of a pathogen and that of information.

She noted that information in such contexts is rarely neutral, and this lack of neutrality often accelerates the epidemic. Rivera advocated for a holistic approach that addresses both outbreaks in tandem, recognizing the systemic factors that contribute to public distrust or feelings of neglect.

Rivera distinguished between trust and trustworthiness, stating that she aims to earn trustworthiness rather than demand blind trust based on her scientific or expert status. She observed that in today's world, trust and expertise have become subjective, with individuals often prioritizing familiarity over verified knowledge.

She highlighted the personalized and human-centered nature of current information consumption. Whitney Pennington Rodgers then prompted Rivera to discuss the importance of storytelling, quoting Rivera's earlier statement that "data alone doesn't tell a story, stories do."

Rodgers asked how Rivera uses storytelling as a tool for courage and leadership, particularly when audiences might distrust scientific data.

Rivera discussed the importance of storytelling in making scientific information accessible, acknowledging the common phrase, "The plural of anecdote is not data." However, she argued that personal stories significantly influence decisions and can connect people to scientific choices.

She shared her transparent approach to communicating her thought processes, including personal experiences like postpartum anxiety, to demonstrate the human element of expert decision-making. Rivera believes this transparency helps bridge the gap between humanized experts and the people they serve.

She critiqued the overuse of phrases like "vaccines work, vaccines save lives," which she believes have become empty slogans.

She emphasized the need to connect the "vaccine" (the scientific product) with "vaccination" (the act of receiving it) through reliable messages from trusted messengers. Rivera asserted that effective communication involves making clinical trial data understandable and ensuring transparency throughout the process, free from conflicts of interest.

She pointed out that billions are spent on research and development (R&D) for life-saving interventions, yet communication efforts are often an afterthought.

She stressed that trust profoundly influences health decisions. Rivera warned that neglecting investment in communication means that valuable scientific tools and interventions risk becoming unused and ineffective.

Rivera emphasized that rebuilding trust in science and public figures, eroded by misinformation, is a protracted process. She noted that trust can be broken much faster than it can be repaired, drawing parallels to her experience as a mother constantly engaging in repair work.

She highlighted the deep pain and trauma of the past five years, advocating for a multidisciplinary approach in science that includes social scientists, psychologists, therapists, politicians, and strategists. Rivera believes these diverse perspectives are essential for collaboratively charting a path to restore trust.

Rivera expressed concern about the erosion of meaning for terms like "reliable," "evidence-based," and "gold standard," which underscores the ongoing struggle for trust. She sees it as her duty to transparently expose the processes behind scientific endeavors.

She affirmed the rightful place of expertise in informing decisions and recommendations, but underscored that a significant part of repairing trust involves scientists openly admitting, "I don't know" or "I don't know yet." Rivera acknowledged that this uncertainty can be uncomfortable for many scientists but is inherent to the scientific method.

Rivera explained that the very lack of certainty is what drives scientific inquiry—the desire to find answers to unknowns. She advocated for a return to the foundational principles of the scientific method, focusing on hypotheses and processes rather than presenting conclusions with absolute certainty or binary thinking.

Whitney Pennington Rodgers then asked Rivera about her optimism regarding young communicators. Rivera expressed excitement about the emergence of terms like "infodemic" and "infodemiology" in public discourse, which were previously uncommon.

She believes this signifies a growing recognition of the importance of scientific communication, making her hopeful for a new generation of scientists capable of effectively sharing their work with the public.

Rivera expressed enthusiasm for the increasing awareness of terms like "infodemic" and "infodemiology," noting that they were once obscure but are now part of public lexicon. She stressed the importance of training a generation of scientists who can communicate their findings effectively, as their work remains incomplete if confined to academic institutions.

She highlighted the need for scientific findings to be repeatable and understandable in everyday conversations, making science accessible to all. Rivera’s passion for her work stems from becoming a "personal scientist" for many, allowing them to refer to her by name and validate her messages through shared understanding rather than blind trust.

She believes that fostering this ability to repeat and explain messages clearly to diverse audiences instills hope for the future, even amidst a tense information ecosystem.

Whitney Pennington Rodgers praised Rivera's perspective, asking how she encourages others to persevere in communication, especially when facing concerns about making a difference. Rivera reaffirmed her belief that "the good outweighs the bad," despite personal experiences with violence, death threats, and antagonism from keyboard warriors.

She emphasized that while not minimizing real threats, public health communicators are supported by evidence and data, a crucial distinction from those spreading misinformation. Rivera explained that public health interventions are often "victims of their own success" because when they work, they become invisible, preventing mass death and disease.

She underscored the challenge of making this invisible work visible, which requires consistent communication and inviting more people into the process. Failure to do so, she warned, leads to defunding, devaluation, and deprioritization, echoing the factors that contributed to the dire situation in 2020.

Rivera explained that public health functions optimally when people are healthy, which is the ultimate goal. She emphasized that making this often-invisible work visible requires consistent communication and broader engagement.

She reflected on her courage, drawing strength from her multiple identities as an epidemiologist, communicator, and mother. Rivera believes these roles contribute to the public's trust in her.

She recalled instances when she had to speak out against dangerous claims or specific political figures, even when fearful. Rivera's work exposes her to the "darker things," such as the dismantling of public health systems and the spread of dangerous health misinformation globally, including public health crises in places like Gaza, which she connects to broader issues affecting children and families.

Rivera discussed her motivation to speak out against dangerous and harmful claims made by administrations, politicians, or individuals, despite personal fear. Her work often exposes her to grim realities, such as the dismantling of public health systems and global health misinformation, including the situation in Gaza, which she connects to children and public health.

She found clarity during a recent visit to Rwanda with UNICEF, recalling her earlier thoughts on hope and repair ten years after the genocide. This experience reinforced her fundamental question: "Why do I do what I do?"

Rivera concluded that her strength lies in making difficult, complex, and uncomfortable topics understandable to diverse audiences, providing her with the purpose to advocate for science, justice, and the vulnerable, and observing the positive impact of these efforts.

Rivera reflected on her core strength, which is the ability to make sense of challenging, complicated, and uncomfortable topics for various audiences. This skill provides her with a clear purpose: to speak out about science, injustice, and the plight of the vulnerable.

She expressed satisfaction in witnessing the positive outcomes of her communication efforts. Whitney Pennington Rodgers concluded the conversation by acknowledging the beauty of Rivera's work and its universal applicability, suggesting that everyone can practice making sense of complexity.

Both Rivera and Rodgers expressed gratitude, with Rivera extending her thanks to the audience.