A survey across 16 countries finds 70% of people believe at least one false or unproven health claim—raising urgent questions about trust in science.
More than two-thirds of people say they believe at least one widely shared health claim that research does not support—an unsettling snapshot of how evidence travels.
The survey, covering more than 16,000 respondents in 16 countries, tested public agreement with multiple statements described as false or unproven.. Among them were claims such as the idea that taking paracetamol during pregnancy causes autism. that vaccines’ risks outweigh their benefits. that fluoride in drinking water is harmful. and that raw milk is healthier than pasteurized.. For each statement. between roughly one quarter and one third of respondents said they believed it. while another substantial share—between about one fifth and nearly two fifths—said they did not know whether it was true.
A majority may be “doubting,” not just misunderstanding
When the results are combined, 70% of respondents reported believing at least one of the claims.. That figure matters because it suggests the issue is not confined to a small pocket of people rejecting science.. Misryoum’s reading of the numbers points to a broader challenge: uncertainty and skepticism are spreading through mainstream conversations. not only through fringe channels.
Equally important is what the survey found about how people engage with health information.. Those who believed three or more claims were not necessarily less educated.. They were. if anything. as likely to have attended university and were more likely to consume health news than people who believed fewer claims.. That complicates the common assumption that misinformation is simply a lack of knowledge.. Misryoum suggests the real problem may be how people interpret evidence when they’re exposed to competing narratives that all feel plausible.
A separate Misryoum-backed takeaway from the survey’s discussion is that many respondents sit in a gray zone.. Not everyone is convinced; many simply can’t tell what’s true.. That matters in practice because health decisions rarely hinge on a single belief.. A person might dismiss one claim but still consider another credible. especially when both are presented confidently online or repeated by acquaintances.
Why conflicting messages can reshape trust
Research highlighted alongside the survey points to a wider pattern during recent years: public confidence can remain relatively high at the level of “science” while trust in institutions or specific messengers shifts.. In the United States. for example. confidence in scientists to act in the public interest has stayed far higher than confidence in business leaders or elected officials. even though it has dipped compared with the pre-pandemic period.. In other words, the public is not simply abandoning science.
Misryoum sees the tension as one of routing: when people encounter an information overload—through social media. news. peer networks. and promotional content—they may not reject the idea of expertise. but they may redistribute where they find it.. The survey discussion describes “trusted voices” that can include personal recommendations. influencers. and people with academic training outside traditional institutional authority.
That redistribution can dilute the effect of scientific consensus.. If a person hears that “experts” disagree. or if multiple sources claim to be evidence-based. the psychological pull of novelty and personal relevance can become strong.. In practical terms, this can make a well-studied health recommendation feel less settled than it actually is.
The vaccine and pregnancy example shows the stakes
Some of the claims tested are not niche; they touch the heart of public health and family decisions.. The paracetamol (acetaminophen) pregnancy-and-autism claim, for instance, is widely circulated despite lacking scientific support.. When such ideas take root, they can affect how pregnant people manage medication, and how clinicians communicate risk.
Misryoum also notes that the vaccine-related statements tested in the survey—such as the notion that vaccine risks outweigh benefits—are particularly consequential because vaccines are preventive tools.. Beliefs that reduce trust in prevention can ripple outward: fewer people vaccinating, more outbreaks, and more strain on health systems.
The survey’s geographic spread matters too.. It suggests that these beliefs are not confined to any single country or media ecosystem.. In multiple places included in the analysis. at least half of respondents agreed with one or more of the “divisive” health statements.. That cross-national pattern points to underlying mechanisms—like the universal reach of online content and the shared human tendency to weigh personal testimony and emotionally resonant narratives.
What needs to change: communication, not patronizing
If public skepticism is growing, the response cannot simply be dismissal.. The survey discussion argues against patronizing people who challenge established perspectives. emphasizing that concerns can come from legitimate reasons—whether that’s past mistrust. frustration with unclear messaging. or genuine desire to protect loved ones.
Misryoum’s editorial lens is that communication is the lever.. Scientific institutions may not be failing at science; they may be failing at clarity, accessibility, and timeliness.. If explanations aren’t presented in ways people can quickly evaluate—especially in fast-moving social feeds—audiences will keep searching elsewhere.
That leaves a pressing question for future health policy and public science: how do scientists and health authorities compete with the confidence style of misinformation?. The answer likely lies in meeting people where they are. offering transparent uncertainty where it truly exists. and explaining the evidence behind recommendations without making the public feel talked down to.
A warning sign for evidence-based medicine
Misryoum’s overall takeaway from the survey is that the challenge is becoming systemic.. When a large share of the public believes at least one unsupported claim, the consequences extend beyond individual beliefs.. That environment can undermine preventive medicine, complicate clinical conversations, and make it harder for effective interventions to maintain public support.
The survey does not prove why people believe these claims.. But it does reveal a clear signal: evidence-based medicine may be operating in a communications landscape where “trust” is no longer a one-way transfer from institutions to audiences.. Until that gap is addressed, the same beliefs will likely continue to cycle—spreading, evolving, and reappearing under new packaging.