For a moment, I was reminded of a discussion from my college daze (over 30 years ago) in which my psychology professor were exploring the way people would successfully take completely crackpot ideas and apply a heavy dose of "science vocabulary" and suddenly a large swath of people would believe something utterly nonsensical was "real," because of the "science speak." Kind of like the old dihydrogen monoxide (strictly chemical terminology for H2O) hoax...
To me, "science" as fake news seems to be just another variation of the old newspaper maxim "If it bleeds, it leads." Sensationalism sells. So if there's even a slight chance that someone in a lab thought it, at some time... the media leads with "AVOCADOS CAN CURE ALZHEIMERS!" Or something like that... and people jump all over it and perpetuate it because of our tendency to want an "easy button" for everything in life.
Now, can it sometimes be expedient to act on something without 100% proof of truth? I would say yes... based on discernment and critical analysis; for example, even if there's no conclusive proof of global warming, or proof that fossil fuels are the primary culprit... renewable energy is still a good idea; we're more likely to run out of liquid dinosaurs than wind and sun.