The past few weeks have been a good reminder that stigmatizing language and misinformation about mental health shows up in mainstream conversations, public policy debates, and even Senate hearings. And every time they go unchallenged, they reinforce dangerous myths that keep people from seeking help, deepen shame, and fuel harmful narratives about mental health.
If you didn’t see the exchange a few weeks back between Senator Smith from Minnesota and the nominee (at the time) to run Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy, watch/read here. There was a brief write up on this exchange in USA Today and the New York Times, too. This is the backdrop and context for today’s post.
Like many of you, I watched how questions—many basic, fact-based questions—were posed, and instead of a response grounded in science, we got deflection, misinformation, and outright stigmatizing language. It made me frustrated to say the least. After years of fighting for progress, for better understanding, for real conversations about mental health, it feels like we’re still stuck pushing back against the same harmful, outdated narratives that simply aren’t true. I’ve seen firsthand what stigma does to people—how it keeps them suffering in silence, how it makes them question whether they even deserve help. And seeing it play out again, in such a public setting, reminded me that no matter how far we think we’ve come, there’s always more work to do.
To be clear, this isn’t just about one Senate hearing or one public figure. It’s about a broader responsibility we have as a mental health community: we must be more aggressive, more real-time, and more relentless in calling out misinformation whenever and wherever it appears.
Why Stigma is So Damaging
Stigma isn’t just about hurt feelings and mean words, it has measurable, life-threatening consequences. Studies show that stigma prevents people from seeking treatment, increases feelings of isolation, and worsens mental health outcomes. According to the World Health Organization, nearly half of people struggling with mental illness don’t seek help, often because of fear of judgment or discrimination. Research has also found that internalized stigma; that is, when people absorb negative societal attitudes, leads to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and even suicide. The more stigma persists, the more people suffer, avoiding treatment that could save or improve their lives. This isn’t just a public perception issue; it’s an actual public health problem.
Fighting Stigma in Real Time
Too often, organizations that care about these issues take days, weeks, or even months to respond, if at all. But by then, the damage is done. The viral moment has passed, the misinformation has spread, and those who need to hear the truth never get it. If we’re serious about combating stigma, we need to be just as fast and just as loud as those spreading harmful narratives.
That means:
Correct misinformation immediately. Whether it’s on social media, in the news, or in government hearings, we can’t let falsehoods about mental health go unchecked. Every misleading claim about medication, therapy, or mental illness itself needs an immediate, evidence-based response. Show up where people are receiving their news and make sure to refute bad claims with evidence-backed statements. So many organizations out there can do this with just a little bit more help and intention.
Meeting people where they are. It’s not enough to publish research papers or release carefully worded statements weeks later. We need to engage in real-time conversations on the platforms where misinformation spreads—TikTok, Instagram, X, and through mainstream media. Many of you do this, but it seems more of us need to do it, too.
Pushing organizations to respond strategically. Mental health advocacy groups are in a difficult position, especially when the stakes are high with policymakers. But silence can be just as damaging as misinformation. That doesn’t mean reckless confrontation, it means finding ways to communicate the truth without alienating decision-makers. Organizations must find ways to counteract harmful narratives, even when political realities make direct opposition difficult. With the impending cuts to mental health funding, this can be a scary time, and the power dynamic is such that it can put people in a tricky position to know how to respond. But respond we must. Whether through education campaigns, expert commentary, or behind-the-scenes advocacy, we need action, not avoidance.
Empowering individuals to speak out. It’s not just about large organizations—every person in the mental health community, from professionals to advocates to those with lived experience, has a role to play. If we see misinformation, we should correct it. If we hear stigma, we should challenge it. Every voice matters in shifting the conversation.
The truth is, the fight against stigma isn’t just about education, albeit important, it’s about speed, visibility, and persistence. Misinformation spreads fast. We need to be faster. We must be faster.
This sounds like a lot of work, right? Well it is. However, coming together, working as a field, we can cover the area in a more comprehensive way than we could if we were doing it alone.
So the next time someone spreads falsehoods about mental health, let’s do our best to respond in real time, with facts, with urgency, and with the collective voice of a community that refuses to let stigma win. There’s just too much at stake.
As someone who has both been on and come off antidepressants / SSRIs, it often feels to me like the problem is that there is not a shared mainstream point of view on the nuances of them -- particularly the challenges of coming off of them. The paragraph in the USA Today piece, for example, reads: "Withdrawal symptoms usually start within 5 days of stopping the medicine and last 1 to 2 weeks, and are typically mild, according to the NHS and American Academy of Family Physicians. However, some people have severe withdrawal symptoms that last for several months or more. One study showed that these symptoms can last up to one year, but according to the Cleveland Clinic, another study showed that 2% of people who experienced discontinuation symptoms had lasting symptoms for three or more years." Sounds simple, right? But obviously those of us who are deeper into the science knows it's often much more complex than that (https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/going-off-antidepressants), and many doctors seem to be unaware of the importance of very slow titration. This is where the trust gets broken between news orgs / institutions and average people. Until we start to learn to explain how these things actually work in a consistent way, I suspect we will continue to see these kinds of inflamed exchanges.
Thanks for writing this. I didn’t see the exchange you mention but will read it.