The long-held belief that health misinformation was a fringe issue, confined to a small, easily identifiable group of individuals, has been shattered by a groundbreaking global survey. The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report on Trust and Health, which gathered insights from over 16,000 people across 16 countries, reveals a startling truth: a staggering seven out of ten people worldwide harbor at least one widely debunked health belief. This isn’t just about a few outliers; it’s a deeply ingrained problem touching a vast majority of the global population. Imagine sitting down with friends, family, or colleagues, and realizing that a significant portion of them genuinely believe things like animal protein being healthier than plant-based options, or that fluoride in water is harmful. These aren’t obscure, complex medical theories; they are foundational health concepts that have been thoroughly researched and consistently debunked by the scientific community. The survey illuminates a concerning landscape where beliefs such as “risk of childhood vaccinations outweighs benefits,” “raw milk is healthier than pasteurized,” “acetaminophen/paracetamol use during pregnancy causes autism,” and even “vaccines are used for population control” are held as truths by a significant percentage of people. Richard Edelman, the CEO of the firm behind this extensive survey, expressed his astonishment, noting that the traditional assumption of skepticism being limited to a specific demographic is simply incorrect. This isn’t a “them” problem; it’s an “us” problem, far more pervasive and complex than previously imagined.
This pervasive nature of misinformation systematically dismantles our preconceived notions about who is susceptible to believing health falsehoods. The Edelman report highlights that education level offers no significant shield, with 69% of university graduates believing at least one debunked claim—a figure virtually identical to the 70% among those without a degree. Political affiliation also proves to be a weak predictor; while 78% of right-leaning respondents hold such beliefs, a substantial 64% of those on the left do as well. Even age groups show little variance, and surprisingly, developing countries exhibit a more pronounced susceptibility than developed ones. The United States, often seen as a hotbed of health misinformation, doesn’t even rank in the top half of surveyed countries, further disproving the idea of easily identifiable hotspots. This data paints a picture where misinformation isn’t a characteristic of a particular group but a societal phenomenon. As the report wisely states, instead of striving for a uniform set of beliefs, which seems increasingly futile, our efforts should be redirected towards improving health outcomes and impact. Edelman researchers point to a worrying trend of social erosion, leading to a “hardening of tribalism.” Dave Bersoff, EVP and Head of Research at the Edelman Trust Institute, explains a vicious cycle: unresolved fears lead to social erosion, which breeds polarization, then paralysis, grievance, and ultimately, insularity. This results in people becoming increasingly distrustful of anyone outside their immediate group, fostering a “negative, mean-spirited way of interacting with the world.” This hardening means that if someone doesn’t share your exact beliefs, values, or cultural background, they are immediately viewed with suspicion, perceived as a threat or someone whose gains come at your expense.
Compounding this pervasive misinformation is a dramatic decline in public confidence regarding individuals’ ability to navigate healthcare decisions. In just one year, self-confidence in finding reliable health information and making informed decisions plummeted by ten percentage points, now resting at a precarious 51%. This decline is statistically significant across 14 of the 16 surveyed countries, indicating a widespread crisis of confidence. Simultaneously, trust in the media’s ability to accurately cover health topics remains significantly below pre-COVID levels, at a mere 46% globally. Richard Edelman observes that people are simply “overwhelmed with info,” struggling to differentiate between various sources, leading to a perceived “equality somehow of the sources.” The problem, as Edelman and his colleagues stress, isn’t a lack of information but an overwhelming abundance of it. Jennifer Hauser, Global Health Chair at Edelman, eloquently states, “I’m getting so much information I don’t know who to trust, how to wade through this and make my final call.” This sentiment resonates deeply with many, highlighting the paralyzing effect of information overload in an unregulated digital landscape. It’s like trying to find a specific book in a library that has been ransacked, with every book strewn everywhere—the information is there, but finding the right, reliable one feels impossible.
Into this vacuum of confusion and eroded trust, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly stepping in. A significant 35% of global respondents now use AI for health management in some capacity. Even more striking is the belief held by 64% that an AI-proficient individual can perform certain medical tasks as well as, or even better than, a trained doctor. This includes critical functions like determining proper treatment or medication (21%) and diagnosing illness (17%). This turn towards AI isn’t an isolated phenomenon; it’s a rational response to a healthcare system that millions feel has failed them. Trust in the U.S. healthcare system, for example, has nose-dived from 71.5% in 2020 to a concerning 40.1% in 2024, according to research from Johns Hopkins University. This erosion of confidence is exacerbated by the sheer difficulty of accessing care. A 2025 West Health-Gallup study revealed that 35% of Americans reported being unable to access quality, affordable healthcare—the highest level since 2021—with disproportionate impact on Black, Hispanic, and lower-income adults. Adding to the burden, a January 2026 KFF Health Tracking Poll found healthcare to be the top household expense Americans worry about, surpassing even rent, food, or utilities. The 2025 Edelman report further revealed that in 9 of the 16 countries surveyed, a majority believe institutions are actively undermining access to quality care. This perception, regardless of its absolute accuracy, profoundly shapes where people seek health guidance. Jennifer Hauser offers a profound insight: people often feel judged by their doctors and are seeking solace in the non-judgmental nature of algorithms. As she puts it, “AI can be less judgmental than physicians… AI can be more empathetic than perhaps what they’re finding with their physician.” Among those already using AI for health management, 84% seek immediate answers to health questions, and 74% use it for a second opinion—a testament to its perceived accessibility and impartiality.
Despite the pervasive challenges, the survey offers a glimmer of hope, particularly in the enduring trust placed in personal physicians across all 16 markets. Justin Blake, Executive Director of the Edelman Trust Institute, emphasizes that the report’s most crucial contribution might be to correct our fundamental misunderstanding of the individuals fueling the misinformation surge. By revealing that the audience for these divisive beliefs is not a distant “other” but rather “us”—the 70% of the population—it creates a unique opportunity. Now that we understand the true scope, there’s a chance to approach this issue with less division and polarization. Blake suggests that acknowledging this widespread belief means recognizing that “the entire information ecosystem has changed” and “how people like to be related to has evolved.” With a clearer understanding of the “playing field,” progress can finally be made. Richard Edelman echoes this cautious optimism but stresses the necessity of abandoning old habits. He argues that science, for too long, has focused solely on “the what,” presenting facts without sufficient context. Moving forward, scientists must also articulate “the why and the how”—because simply stating the “solve” is no longer enough. The prevailing prescription from the Edelman team is a shift from broadcast to conversation, from authoritative dictates to genuine partnership. “We have to listen. We’ve got to meet people where they are,” Edelman advocates, emphasizing a “bottom-up” approach. Jennifer Hauser succinctly summarizes this sentiment: “People don’t want their doctor to be their guru. They want their doctor to be their guide.” This powerful statement encapsulates the evolving relationship between patients and healthcare providers, highlighting a desire for collaborative guidance rather than unquestioning adherence to authority.
This comprehensive global survey dismantles the simplistic notion of health misinformation as a fringe problem, unveiling its deeply ingrained presence across all demographics and regions. It exposes a profound crisis of confidence in both personal decision-making and traditional health institutions, creating a fertile ground for the rapid expansion of AI in healthcare. Yet, within this complex landscape, a clear path forward emerges: a renewed emphasis on empathetic communication, genuine partnership between healthcare providers and patients, and a fundamental shift in how scientific information is presented. The call to action is clear – to move beyond pronouncements and towards meaningful dialogue, fostering a collaborative environment where individuals feel heard, understood, and guided, rather than dictated to. This pivotal shift is paramount not only for tackling the current misinformation epidemic but also for rebuilding trust and empowering individuals to navigate the complexities of their health in an increasingly overwhelming information age.