The COVID-19 pandemic brought widespread attention to correcting health-related misperceptions. This research examines how effective corrections are when combined with scientific consensus messages or partisan viewpoints. A survey experiment was conducted using field experiments across three topics: COVID-19 threat, climate change threat, and vaccine efficacy.

Key Findings:

* Consensus corrections proved no more effective than standard ones overall.

* Only one specific misperception saw improvement with a consensus correction.

* Partisan alignment did not boost the effectiveness of consensus messages; partisan opposition actually reduced credibility and potentially triggered backfire effects.

These results challenge the common assumption that citing scientific agreement enhances corrective messaging. They suggest standard corrections may be more reliable than previously thought, especially when framed against misinformation.