COVID-19 Misinformation and Social Network Crowdfunding: Cross-sectional Study of Alternative Treatments and Antivaccine Mandates

Background: Crowdfunding is increasingly used to offset the financial burdens of illness and health care. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated infodemic, the role of crowdfunding to support controversial COVID-19 stances is unknown. Objective: We sought to examine COVID-19-related crowdfunding focusing on the funding of alternative treatments not endorsed by major medical entities, including campaigns with an explicit antivaccine, antimask, or antihealth care stances. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of GoFundMe campaigns for individuals requesting donations for COVID-19 relief. Campaigns were identified by key word and manual review to categorize campaigns into Traditional treatments, Alternative treatments, Business-related, Mandate, First Response, and General. For each campaign, we extracted basic narrative, engagement, and financial variables. Among those that were manually reviewed, the additional variables of mandate type, mandate stance, and presence of COVID-19 misinformation within the campaign narrative were also included. COVID-19 misinformation was defined as false or misleading statements, where cited evidence could be provided to refute the claim. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study cohort. Results: A total of 30,368 campaigns met the criteria for final analysis. After manual review, we identified 53 campaigns (0.17%) seeking funding for alternative medical treatment for COVID-19, including popularized treatments such as ivermectin (n=14, 26%), hydroxychloroquine (n=6, 11%), and vitamin D (n=4, 7.5%). Moreover, 23 (43%) of the 53 campaigns seeking support for alternative treatments contained COVID-19 misinformation. There were 80 campaigns that opposed mandating masks or vaccination, 48 (60%) of which contained COVID-19 misinformation. Alternative treatment campaigns had a lower median amount raised (US $1135) compared to traditional (US $2828) treatments (P<.001) and a lower median percentile of target achieved (11.9% vs 31.1%; P=.003). Campaigns for alternative treatments raised substantially lower amounts (US $115,000 vs US $52,715,000, respectively) and lower proportions of fundraising goals (2.1% vs 12.5%) for alternative versus conventional campaigns. The median goal for campaigns was significantly higher (US $25,000 vs US $10,000) for campaigns opposing mask or vaccine mandates relative to those in support of upholding mandates (P=.04). Campaigns seeking funding to lift mandates on health care workers reached US $622 (0.15%) out of a US $410,000 goal. Conclusions: A small minority of web-based crowdfunding campaigns for COVID-19 were directed at unproven COVID-19 treatments and support for campaigns aimed against masking or vaccine mandates. Approximately half (71/133, 53%) of these campaigns contained verifiably false or misleading information and had limited fundraising success. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3330

Automated summary

This study analyzed web-based crowdfunding campaigns related to COVID-19 and found that a small minority of these campaigns were focused on unproven treatments for COVID-19 and against masking or vaccine mandates. Approximately half of the campaigns against masking or vaccine mandates contained false or misleading information and had limited fundraising success.