I’m starting to think MAHA is a vibe-based movement. Crazy ideas might come out, but I think there is some wiggle room in there for change.

This week, as we highlight new studies and emerging insights, we’re also keeping an eye on this bigger issue: how to preserve the integrity of evidence, communicate nuance clearly, and continue building trust in science even when the language around it is being stretched in troubling ways.

And we need to do all of this while competing with voices that use the vocabulary of science without any accountability.

We need to be able to say when evidence is strong and when it’s still emerging. We need to be able to distinguish a well-designed study from something dressed up in scientific language but built on shaky foundations.

For those of us who work every day to translate research into practice, this shift creates a real challenge. Public health depends on being honest about both the strengths and the limitations of science.

When “evidence-based” can mean whatever someone wants it to mean, the result isn’t just confusion. It’s erosion of trust.

Words that once signaled rigor, transparency, and methodological care are now being co-opted (sometimes intentionally, sometimes carelessly) to lend credibility to claims that have little to do with science at all.

Classic. Maybe they were playing "Born in the USA" over the loudspeakers, too?

This is actually a great idea. We are so siloed in our messaging that going into "spaces" where we are not welcome allows us to take on hurtful narratives right at the source. It doesn't work often, but if it works sometimes, then we are moving in the right direction.