Majority in the world believes in at least 1 of 6 common and debunked medical myths

For years, the prevailing theory about health misinformation was comfortingly simple: It was a marginal problem, restricted to a small portion of the population — the highly partisan, the less educated, the overly connected to the internet. A new and comprehensive global survey dismantles this theory.

The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Health, based on responses from more than 16,000 people in 16 countries, found that seven in ten people worldwide believe that at least one of six widely debunked health claims is true.

Also read:

False statements to which respondents responded “I believe this is true” include:

• Animal protein is healthier (32%)
• Fluoride in water is harmful or has no health benefits (32%)
• The risk of childhood vaccines outweighs the benefits (31%)
• Raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk (28%)
• The use of acetaminophen/paracetamol during pregnancy causes autism (25%)
• Vaccines are used for population control (25%)

“It’s a pretty impressive set of facts,” Richard Edelman, CEO of the global communications firm behind the five-year survey, told Fortune. The common assumption, he said, was that skeptics of conventional health science “are those who really have doubts about medical truths, and that’s not true. That’s everyone.”

It’s not a marginal problem

The data systematically dismantles all demographic explanations for why people believe what they believe. Among people with a college degree, 69% hold at least one of these beliefs — roughly the same as the 70% among those without a degree.

Beliefs cross the political spectrum: 78% of right-wing respondents believe in at least one of them, as do 64% of left-wing respondents.

The pattern is maintained across different age groups and, notably, is more pronounced in developing countries than in developed countries. The United States, long considered the epicenter of health misinformation, does not even appear in the top half of the countries analyzed.

“The reality is that there are many divisions in the way people think about health, in both developed and developing countries and at different levels of education,” the report states. “Instead of seeking uniformity of beliefs, it is more effective to invest in health results and impact.”

Edelman researchers, who have been tracking the data since the release of the 2021 health-specific report, described a years-long process of social erosion that fuels this trend.

“There are fears — and those fears are chronically ignored or underaddressed,” said Dave Bersoff, executive vice president and head of research at the Edelman Trust Institute. “This begins to lead to the erosion of the social fabric. Polarization arises, polarization leads to paralysis, paralysis leads to resentment, resentment leads to isolation.”

The result, according to him, is a growing hardening in the way people relate to those outside their group — a strengthening of tribalism that makes it increasingly difficult to trust those who think differently.

“I think a lot of what we’re seeing today is this kind of hardening of our tribalism,” Bersoff added, “this idea that I can’t trust anyone who’s not like me, and so anyone who’s different from me—in beliefs, values, or cultural background—is immediately distrusted because I believe they’re trying to take away something that I deserve, or that any gain they gain comes at my expense. It’s a very negative and hostile way of interacting with the world, and that explains a lot of what we see today.”

The collapse of trust

The misinformation crisis exacerbates another related emergency: a sharp drop in people’s confidence in their own ability to make health decisions.

Public confidence in finding reliable information and making informed decisions fell 10 percentage points in just one year, to just 51% — with statistically significant drops in 14 of the 16 countries analyzed.

Meanwhile, trust in the media to cover health topics accurately remains 11 points below its pre-Covid level, at just 46% globally.

“People are overloaded with information, and I don’t know if they can tell one source from another,” said Richard Edelman. “There is a kind of equality between the sources.” The problem, he and his colleagues are keen to highlight, is not a lack of information — it’s exactly the opposite.

“I think we figured the divisive issues would be the result of a lack of information,” said Jennifer Hauser, global health co-president at Edelman. “But in practice, it’s information overload: ‘I’m getting so much information that I don’t know who to trust, how to navigate it and make my final decision.’”

AI advances into the void

In this void, artificial intelligence is rapidly expanding its presence. Thirty-five percent of respondents worldwide already use AI to manage their health in some way — and 64% believe that a person fluent in AI can perform at least one medical task as well as, or better than, a trained doctor, including determining appropriate treatment or medication (21%) and diagnosing illnesses (17%).

The move to AI and autonomous health management does not occur in a vacuum — it is largely a rational response to a system that millions of Americans feel has failed them. Public confidence in the US healthcare system fell from 71.5% in 2020 to 40.1% in 2024, according to research from Johns Hopkins University.

This erosion of trust is worsened by the difficulty in accessing care. A 2025 West Health–Gallup study found that 35% of Americans reported being unable to access quality, affordable health care — the highest level since 2021 — with the impact strongest among Black, Hispanic and low-income adults.

Meanwhile, a January 2026 KFF Health Tracking survey found that healthcare spending is the top financial concern for American families — more than rent, food or basic bills — with two-thirds saying they are worried about being able to pay for care for themselves and their families.

The 2025 Edelman report found that in 9 of 16 countries analyzed, a majority of respondents believe that institutions are actively harming access to quality care — a perception that, whether completely accurate or not, is shaping where people turn for answers.

Hauser said the data indicates something even more revealing: People feel judged by their doctors and are seeking refuge in algorithms.

“AI can be less judgmental than doctors,” he said. “AI can be more empathetic than perhaps what you’re encountering with your doctors.” Among the 35% who already use AI to manage their health, 84% use it to get immediate answers to health questions, and 74% to get a second opinion on a diagnosis.

The doctor as a guide, not a guru

Despite the transformations, the research offers a ray of hope — not just because personal doctors remain the most trusted source on healthcare in the 16 markets analyzed.

Justin Blake, executive director of the Edelman Trust Institute, argued that the report’s most important contribution may be correcting a fundamental misinterpretation about who, exactly, is driving the rise in misinformation.

“In some ways, we misunderstand who the public is that subscribes to these polarizing beliefs,” Blake said. Now that the data has redrawn the scenario, there is an opening, because that 70% number indicates that, as he said, “that’s us”.

With that in mind, he added, “we can approach this issue in a less divided and polarized way and recognize that the entire information ecosystem has changed. The way people want to interact has evolved.” And, now that the playing field is better understood, it is possible to move forward.

Richard Edelman echoed this moderate optimism, but insisted that the path forward requires abandoning old habits. “For years, science has only focused on ‘what,’” he said. “In the next phase, scientists will have to talk about the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ — because it’s no longer enough to say, ‘Here’s the solution, go for it.’”

The recommendation, according to the Edelman team, is less unilateral transmission and more conversation — less authority, more partnership. “We need to listen. We need to meet people where they are,” said Richard Edelman. “The task is to build from the bottom up.”

Hauser summed it up more bluntly: “People don’t want their doctor to be a guru. They want their doctor to be a guide.”

For this story, Fortune journalists used generative AI as a research tool. An editor checked the information for accuracy before publication.

2026 Fortune Media IP Limited