The assumptions health communicators have relied on for decades are spectacularly wrong. Doubts about nutrition, vaccination, and public safety recommendations are no longer a fringe view. They stem neither from a single ideology nor lack of education, and do not result from distrust of doctors or experts. In fact, our latest 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Health, based on a survey of 16,000 respondents across 16 countries, finds that a staggering 70% believe at least one of six divisive health claims about foods, vaccines, and medicines to be true. Understanding the worldview and concerns of the public is everything. CEOs and communicators in health must wake up to this radical new reality.
Divisive health beliefs span the globe, highest in the developing nations of India (89%) and South Africa (88%), lowest in Japan, Canada, and the U.S. (50–61%). The divisive health beliefs apply equally across educational levels (university–degreed versus non-university–degreed) and are more acute among young people (79% for ages 18–34) and right-leaning voters (78%), though majorities hold for ages 55 and older (60%) and the left-leaning (64%). It is striking that only a slight majority (52%) say it is false that the risks of childhood vaccination outweigh the benefits, while slightly over one third (36%) of respondents say it is false that adding fluoride to drinking water is harmful — a public health staple in many Anglophone countries since the 1960s.
The one-year drop in confidence (−10 points to 51%) in people’s ability to make informed health decisions for themselves and their families is staggering. From China to the UAE to Mexico, the majority of people feel their country is divided on key health issues, potentially leading to a profound loss of trust in the healthcare system. Artificial intelligence has already displaced medical expertise in the eyes of many; doctors are competing to influence health decisions with AI, peers, friends and other non-credentialed sources.
More information alone is not the way out of this. Those with more divisive health beliefs are in fact more immersed in information, with on average two thirds saying that they frequently consume health news or consult AI platforms for answers — double or triple the engagement of those who believe no divisive claims. They are nearly three times as likely to read health news from different political orientations. The data reveals deep confusion: they are also more likely to be getting mixed advice from credentialed and uncredentialed voices, and so it follows that they’re three times more likely to disregard health care provider medical guidance in favor of advice from friends, family, or social media in the past year than those who disbelieve divisive health claims. This is not a story of too little — it’s a matter of too much information without proper context.
Science needs a reset to adapt to this unstable world of trust, offering a new deal to patients and health providers. To date, institutional science has solely focused on the WHAT, expressed by top-down communication from credentialed authority figures. That is no longer sufficient for those with skepticism about global institutions, experts, and government born of the COVID-19 ordeal. The HOW must be explained in simple terms, using data visualizations and with greater transparency on clinical trial processes. The WHY requires acknowledgement of benefits versus side effects and the relative value of the innovation versus cost.
Here is a five-point communications strategy for health-sector leaders:
1. Institutions and providers alike need to show up as guides, not advocates.
2. Trust must be brokered across groups with different views, elevating shared goals without needing to achieve unanimity.
3. Acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers. This transparency is, in fact, built into the scientific method.
4. Frequency, frequency, frequency. People need to hear—and be heard—multiple times before they consider a recommendation on health.
5. Surround sound. Utilize a broader circle of trust, valuing friends and family and patient advocacy groups alongside medical experts.
It is time for science to go on offense, to recognize the futility of facts alone, and bring the public along as partner in a better life.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
The landscape of health communication is undergoing a significant transformation, revealing that long-held assumptions about public trust in health information are fundamentally flawed. A recent survey, the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Health, which involved 16,000 respondents across 16 countries, highlights that a concerning 70% of participants believe at least one of six controversial health claims related to nutrition, vaccines, and medicines. This skepticism is not confined to specific ideologies or a lack of education; rather, it cuts across demographics, reflecting a widespread distrust in conventional health narratives.
Divisive health beliefs are particularly pronounced in developing nations, with 89% of respondents in India and 88% in South Africa subscribing to at least one of these claims. In contrast, the belief rates are lower in Japan, Canada, and the United States, where 50-61% of people hold similar views. Notably, these divisive beliefs do not discriminate by educational attainment, impacting both university graduates and those without degrees. Younger individuals (ages 18-34) and right-leaning voters demonstrate higher levels of skepticism (79% and 78%, respectively), although significant percentages of older (60%) and left-leaning (64%) individuals also express doubt.
The survey also reveals alarming trends regarding public confidence in making informed health decisions. There has been a substantial decline, with only 51% of respondents expressing confidence—a decrease of 10 points. Many feel that their countries are divided on key health issues, which could erode trust in healthcare systems globally. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has further complicated this landscape, as many people now turn to AI and non-expert sources for health advice, often overshadowing traditional medical expertise.
Interestingly, those who hold divisive health beliefs tend to consume more information, actively seeking out health news and consulting AI platforms more frequently than those who reject these claims. This paradox highlights a critical issue: the problem isn’t a lack of information but rather an overwhelming amount of mixed messages from both credentialed and non-credentialed sources. Individuals with divisive beliefs are significantly more likely to disregard medical advice from healthcare providers in favor of guidance from friends, family, or social media.
In light of these findings, there’s a pressing need for a reset in how science and health communication operate, particularly in a climate of distrust exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Traditional top-down communication strategies from authoritative figures are no longer effective. Instead, health communicators must focus on three key elements: the « WHAT, » « HOW, » and « WHY » of health information. This involves providing clearer explanations, using data visualizations to enhance understanding, and being transparent about clinical processes, benefits, side effects, and the relative costs of innovations.
To address these challenges, health-sector leaders are encouraged to adopt a five-point communication strategy:
-
Serve as Guides: Institutions and providers should position themselves as guides rather than advocates, helping individuals navigate health decisions without pushing a specific agenda.
-
Broker Trust Across Differences: Engage with diverse viewpoints to build trust and focus on shared health goals without the necessity for complete agreement.
-
Embrace Uncertainty: Acknowledge that not all answers are known, which aligns with the scientific method’s inherent transparency.
-
Increase Communication Frequency: Consistent messaging is crucial; individuals need to hear recommendations multiple times before they are willing to accept them.
-
Create a Broader Circle of Trust: Recognize the importance of social networks, valuing input from friends, family, and patient advocacy groups in conjunction with medical experts.
In conclusion, it is essential for the field of health communication to evolve, acknowledging that facts alone will not suffice. Instead, a collaborative approach that involves the public as partners in health decision-making is necessary for fostering trust and improving health outcomes. As this transformation unfolds, health communicators and leaders must be proactive in adapting to the new realities of public sentiment and skepticism, enhancing their strategies to effectively engage with the community.
