Federal Health Communications and ADHD Skepticism 

New Presidential Actions Limit the Scope of Health Communication from Federal Institutions

Recent presidential actions have raised concerns about the federal government’s role in health communication, particularly its ability to regulate public health guidance and ensure access to certain health data. In response to several executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and gender, federal health agencies removed information and datasets related to topics like youth risk behaviors and HIV treatment guidance from their websites. The decision resulted in widespread criticism from health professionals, along with a lawsuit arguing that the data removals hinder medical research and patient care by creating a “dangerous gap in the scientific data.”

Early presidential actions also included an executive order limiting the federal government’s ability to address online misinformation, framing previous efforts as censorship and violations of constitutional rights. This move coincides with social media platforms scaling back fact-checking due to concerns about overreach and First Amendment rights. Together, these actions mark a shift in federal health communication, with increased political oversight and stricter limits on the federal government’s role in countering false or misleading health information.

Social Media and Public Figures Influence Doubts About ADHD

The increasing prevalence of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States has fueled ongoing debate about whether behavioral differences are being overmedicalized. While ADHD is a well-documented neurodevelopmental disorder with established diagnostic criteria, some medical professionals have challenged existing self-report diagnostic tools and overdiagnosis in certain populations. Concerns about overdiagnosis often intertwine with doubts about pharmaceutical companies’ intentions for promoting ADHD medications, sometimes resulting in a misrepresentation of the condition itself.

Public concerns over ADHD medication are not new. In the 1970s, a Washington Post article incorrectly reported that five to ten percent of children in an Omaha, Nebraska, school district were receiving Ritalin or Dexedrine—two stimulant medications—to manage behavior. The article did not clearly explain that the percentage only reflected students in the school’s disability support program, generating panic that doctors were coercing parents to medicate their children. Tighter regulations on stimulant medications occurred around the same time, while some books linking hyperactivity to diet reinforced doubts about ADHD as a legitimate condition, even though research did not support this link.

Similar narratives exist today, where some claim that ADHD is an industry-driven diagnosis designed to expand medication sales. These doubts were reflected in social media discussions after a January 27th article by the Associated Press highlighted the growing number of people questioning whether they have ADHD. Some commenters accused the AP of contributing to a broader effort to normalize widespread medication use, with statements such as, “Whatever the case may be the solution is not to get everyone hooked on Meth,” and “seems like somebody wants us all medicated.” Similar doubts emerged after a recent U.K. study linked ADHD to a shorter life expectancy—while some viewed the study as evidence for the importance of treatment, others dismissed it as an attempt to justify increased stimulant prescriptions. 

Public figures have also contributed to this skepticism. During a recent episode of "Back to the People" with Nicole Shanahan, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville suggested that rising ADHD prescriptions, rather than firearms, could be responsible for school shootings. Similarly, during his Senate hearings as a nominee for Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. implied connections between mental health medications, such as antidepressants, and school shootings. Despite a lack of scientifically strong evidence supporting these claims, such narratives continue to spread on social media.

As conversations about ADHD treatment evolve, skepticism plays a role in shaping public perceptions, healthcare policies, and access to treatment options. Addressing these debates requires balancing concerns about overdiagnosis with recognition that ADHD treatment approaches, including but not limited to medication, can be beneficial for many.

FDA's Red Dye No. 3 Ban Leads Some to Question the FDA’s Timeliness

The public's reaction to the FDA's recent ban on FD&C Red No. 3 (Red Dye No. 3) highlights skepticism about the agency's effectiveness as a food safety regulator amid concern over food dyes. The decision followed a 2022 petition citing studies that linked high doses of the dye to cancer in male rats. While the FDA notes that similar effects have not been found in other animals and there is no clear evidence of cancer risk in humans, the Delaney Clause prohibits additives linked to cancer in humans or animals. Despite these reassurances from the FDA, some see the ban as validating concerns about food dye risks and question why the FDA took so long to act. Others, while recognizing that the ban does not necessarily indicate harm at normal consumption levels, may still see it as reinforcing broader doubts about the agency’s ability to assess the safety of food and medications in the U.S.

Flagging Misinformation Influences Online Engagement

A study in Nature examined the impact of labeling online content as misinformation on subsequent engagement with information. Using data from Twitter (now X), researchers found that when a single person publicly responds to a post with a fact-check or correction, the original poster is likely to retreat into an information bubble, resulting in limited exposure to diverse content. In contrast, systems where multiple users review and approve a fact-check before it is shown to the original poster, such as Twitter’s Community Notes, do not have the same impact on information engagement. This may be because individual tags tend to be short and emotionally charged, while collective tags are more deliberative and neutral. The study suggests that while both methods address misinformation, collective tagging may better support long-term engagement with diverse information sources.

Source: Kim, J., Wang, Z., Shi, H., Ling, H. K., & Evans, J. (2025). Differential impact from individual versus collective misinformation tagging on the diversity of Twitter (X) information engagement and mobility. Nature Communications, 16(1), 973.

Low-Quality Health Information About Semaglutides in Spanish-Language TikTok Videos

A study in Social Science & Medicine analyzed Spanish-language TikTok videos on semaglutide, a type 2 diabetes and weight loss medication, and found that most provided low-quality health information and promoted harmful social norms. The videos often depicted obesity as an individual issue and normalized semaglutide use without discussing associated risks or the need for professional healthcare consultation. Many videos also ignored lifestyle changes and emphasized pharmaceutical solutions. The researchers suggested stronger digital literacy programs and regulation of health-related content on social media, including more transparency from influencers and healthcare professionals to improve informed decision-making around these medications.

Source: Campos-Rivera, P. A., Alfaro-Ponce, B., Ramírez-Pérez, M., Bernal-Serrano, D., Contreras-Loya, D., & Wirtz, V. J. (2025). Quality of information and social norms in Spanish-speaking TikTok videos as levers of commercial practices: The case of semaglutide. Social Science & Medicine, 366, 117646.

Addressing Inflated Sense of Proficiency and Bias Recognition as a Part of AI Literacy

AI literacy plays a large role in shaping how individuals perceive and interact with generative technologies like ChatGPT. This form of literacy enables individuals to make informed decisions and engage with AI responsibly by improving their understanding, use, and evaluation of AI technologies. However, as a study published in New Media & Society found, perceptions of AI proficiency can be skewed, with individuals often overestimating their own abilities compared to others. This self-other perceptual gap, driven by subjective rather than objective knowledge, can significantly influence attitudes towards AI and its regulation. For instance, those who perceive themselves as highly proficient in AI may be more confident in their ability to use such technologies, but this confidence can create challenges when it comes to accurately evaluating AI outputs or recognizing biases inherent in these systems. To address this gap, one proposed framework for AI literacy suggests there is a need for individuals to not only enhance their technical knowledge of AI systems but also develop a more robust perspective on how AI operates and how biases may be embedded within these systems. This more robust understanding of AI systems may help mitigate inflated perceptions of proficiency and encourage more informed, balanced interactions with AI technology.