Why we fall for fake health information – and how it spreads faster than facts
In today's digital world, people routinely turn to the internet for health or medical information. In addition to actively searching online, they often come across health-related information on social media or receive it through emails or messages from family or friends.
It can be tempting to share such messages with loved ones – often with the best of intentions.
As a global health communication scholar studying the effects of media on health and development, I explore artistic and creative ways to make health information more engaging and accessible, empowering people to make informed decisions.
Although there is a fire hose of health-related content online, not all of it is factual. In fact, much of it is inaccurate or misleading, raising a serious health communication problem: Fake health information – whether shared unknowingly and innocently, or deliberately to mislead or cause harm – can be far more captivating than accurate information.
This makes it difficult for people to know which sources to trust and which content is worthy of sharing.
Fake health information can take many forms. For example, it may be misleading content that distorts facts to frame an issue or individual in a certain context. Or it may be based on false connections, where headlines, visuals or captions don't align with the content. Despite this variation, such content often shares a few common characteristics that make it seem believable and more shareable than facts.
For one thing, fake health information often appears to be true because it mixes a grain of truth with misleading claims.
For example, early in the COVID-19 pandemic, false rumors suggested that drinking ethanol or bleach could protect people from the virus. While ethanol or bleach can indeed kill viruses on surfaces such as countertops, it is extremely dangerous when it comes into contact with skin or gets inside the body.
Another marker of fake health information is that it presents ideas that are simply too good to be true. There is something appealingly counterintuitive in certain types of fake health information that can make people feel they have access to valuable or exclusive knowledge that others may not know. For example, a claim such as 'chocolate helps you lose weight' can be especially appealing because it offers a sense of permission to indulge and taps into a simple, feel-good solution to a complex problem. Such information often spreads faster because it sounds both surprising and hopeful, validating what some people want to believe.
Sensationalism also drives the spread of fake health information. For instance, when critics falsely claimed that Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical adviser to the president at the time, was responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, it generated a lot of public attention.
In a study on vaccine hesitancy published in 2020, my colleagues and I found that controversial headlines in news reports that go viral before national vaccination campaigns can discourage parents from getting their children vaccinated. These headlines seem to reveal sensational and secret information that can falsely boost the message's credibility.
The internet has created fertile ground for spreading fake health information. Professional-looking websites and social media posts with misleading headlines can lure people into clicking or quickly sharing, which drives more and more readers to the falsehood. People tend to share information they believe is relevant to them or their social circles.
In 2019, an article with the false headline 'Ginger is 10,000x more effective at killing cancer than chemo' was shared more than 800,000 times on Facebook. The article contained several factors that make people feel an urgency to react and share without checking the facts: compelling visuals, emotional stories, misleading graphs, quotes from experts with omitted context and outdated content that is recirculated.
Visual cues like the logos of reputable organizations or photos of people wearing white medical coats add credibility to these posts. This kind of content is highly shareable, often reaching far more people than scientifically accurate studies that may lack eye-catching headlines or visuals, easy-to-understand words or dramatic storylines.
But sharing content without verifying it first has real-world consequences. For example, studies have found that COVID-19-related fake information reduces people's trust in the government and in health care systems, making people less likely to use or seek out health services.
Unfounded claims about vaccine side effects have led to reduced vaccination rates globally, fueling the return of dangerous diseases, including measles.
Social media misinformation, such as false claims about cinnamon being a treatment for cancer, has caused hospitalizations and even deaths. The spread of health misinformation has reduced cooperation with important prevention and treatment recommendations, prompting a growing need for medical professionals to receive proper training and develop skills to effectively debunk fake health information.
In today's era of information overload in which anyone can create and share content, being able to distinguish between credible and misleading health information before sharing is more important than ever. Researchers and public health organizations have outlined several strategies to help people make better-informed decisions.
Whether health care consumers come across health information on social media, in an email or through a messaging app, here are three reliable ways to verify its accuracy and credibility before sharing:
Use a search engine to cross-check health claims. Never rely on a single source. Instead, enter the health claim into a reputable search engine like Google and see what trusted sources have to say. Prioritize information from established organizations like the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, United Nations Children's Fund or peer-reviewed journals like The Lancet or Journal of the American Medical Association. If multiple reputable sources agree, the information is more likely to be reliable. Reliable fact-checking websites such as FactCheck.org and Snopes can also help root out fake information.
Evaluate the source's credibility. A quick way to assess a website's trustworthiness is to check its 'About Us' page. This section usually explains who is behind the content, their mission and their credentials. Also, search the name of the author. Do they have recognized expertise or affiliations with credible institutions? Reliable websites often have domains ending in .gov or .edu, indicating government or educational institutions. Finally, check the publication date. Information on the internet keeps circulating for years and may not be the most accurate or relevant in the present context.
If you're still unsure, don't share. If you're still uncertain about the accuracy of a claim, it's better to keep it to yourself. Forwarding unverified information can unintentionally contribute to the spread of misinformation and potentially cause harm, especially when it comes to health.
Questioning dubious claims and sharing only verified information not only protects against unsafe behaviors and panic, but it also helps curb the spread of fake health information. At a time when misinformation can spread faster than a virus, taking a moment to pause and fact-check can make a big difference.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Angshuman K. Kashyap, University of Maryland
Read more:
Nutrition advice is rife with misinformation − a medical education specialist explains how to tell valid health information from pseudoscience
Health misinformation is rampant on social media – here's what it does, why it spreads and what people can do about it
Raw milk health risks significantly outweigh any potential benefits − food scientists and nutritionists explain why
Angshuman K. Kashyap does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Migratory birds develop antibodies to bird flu, officials say
(WAVY) – Wildlife officials are keeping a close eye on the spread of avian influenza after along the North Carolina coast earlier this year — most of them brown pelicans. The outbreak has since been linked to the H5N1 strain of bird flu, a virus that continues to mutate and occasionally jump to other species, raising concern among experts. Miranda Turner, a wildlife health biologist with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, said the area is a prime wintering ground for birds — making it easier for disease to spread. 'When you bring a lot of animals together and you have them traveling from different locations, it's a really good way to transmit diseases,' Turner said. In Hampton Roads, bird flu outbreaks aren't new. Lisa Barlow, president of T recalls treating sick and dying Canada geese during a 2021 outbreak on the Lafayette River. 'We dealt with about three to four dozen Canada geese that came in sick and dying,' Barlow said. 'Only six survived the flu, and even those had to be euthanized due to severe neurological symptoms.' Barlow described birds arriving unable to hold their heads up, their beaks caked in mud. Many died within 24 hours. As the virus continues to affect wildlife, it's not just birds at risk. , including seals, cats and even cattle. Experts say it's mutated at least several times since it was first identified. 'I mean, anything that can do that — it's kind of frightening, but amazing,' Barlow said. Despite the concerning spread, health officials emphasize the risk to humans remains low. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 70 human cases have been reported nationwide, including one death. Most infections have been among people with repeated exposure to infected animals, such as poultry or dairy farm workers. 'There's really low risk,' Turner said. 'Still, it's a good idea to clean bird feeders regularly and wear gloves or a mask if you handle injured wildlife.' Barlow also urges caution for those who come across sick birds. 'If you do want to help, wear gloves, protect yourself,' she said. 'Common sense goes a long way.' Meanwhile, as migratory birds continue to interact and spread the virus, some are developing natural antibodies, according to Turner. 'They're bouncing back and creating herd immunity,' she said. Last week, the Associated Press reported the in funding meant to support Moderna's development of a bird flu vaccine. The vaccine, which uses mRNA technology similar to the COVID-19 vaccine, had shown early promise in clinical trials. For now, wildlife officials say they expect to see more outbreaks in the years ahead, especially during peak migration periods. 'Because this virus is so common in migratory birds, it is likely that we will continue to see cases here and there every winter,' Turner said. As of right now, there have been no confirmed human cases of H5N1 in Virginia and although the risk remains low for humans, for birds it can be extremely deadly – leading to large die-off events like the ones we saw near Cape Hatteras. 'Unfortunately, this was the first kind of major large scale mortality event… while it looks really bad at that small scale of seeing 300 brown pelicans die – it's not impacting their population as a whole or the species as a whole,' adds Turner. Turner also explains that the surviving pelicans are still there, 'The brown pelicans that did survive that event were still nesting on that island successfully and are doing well. So really, it's a short scale kind of scary looking event, but nothing that raises alarm for biologists in the long term.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
New coronavirus discovered in China ‘only small step' from infecting humans
A new coronavirus discovered in China is only a small step from mutating and causing another global pandemic, experts have warned. Scientists believe the variant, called HKU5-CoV-2, may infect a broader range of animals than Covid-19 – which caused millions of deaths – and may have more potential for jumping between species. US researchers fear that HKU5-CoV-2, found in China, in February, could also infect humans, leading to a widespread outbreak. The new study, published in Nature Communications, looked at a lesser-known group of coronaviruses called merbecoviruses, which includes HKU5 and MERS-CoV, which is responsible for the deadly Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. The team from Washington State University looked at how the new pathogen interacts with human cells. They found that a small change in the virus's spike protein could allow it to attach to human ACE2 cells in people's throats, mouths and noses. HKU5-CoV-2 can infect and replicate inside human cells in both the airways and gut. According to the World Health Organisation, about 35 per cent of people infected with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome die. Since 2012, some 27 countries have reported cases, leading to 858 known deaths due to the infection, which spread from camels. But when HKU5 was discovered in February, scientists warned against exaggerating the risks because it does not enter human cells as readily as Sars-CoV-2, which caused Covid-19. HKU5 was first detected in bats by scientists from the Chinese laboratory where some say Covid originated in 2019. Prof Michael Letko, a virologist who co-led the study, said: 'HKU5 viruses in particular really hadn't been looked at much, but our study shows how these viruses infect cells. 'What we also found is HKU5 viruses may be only a small step away from being able to spill over into humans.' When Covid-19 emerged it was widely blamed on markets in China where different breeds of wild animal are kept caged and often slaughtered close to other animals. Meat is sold at the open-air stalls. Critics said the markets were the perfect breeding ground for new zoonotic diseases – those that spread to humans – to emerge. The scientists, whose experiments studied how the new pathogen interacts with human cells, believe the virus would have to carry certain mutations if it were to infect humans. 'These viruses are closely related to MERS, so we have to be concerned if they ever infect humans,' Prof Letko said. 'While there's no evidence they've crossed into people yet, the potential is there and that makes them worth watching.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Should Massachusetts keep religious exemptions to vaccine mandates?
BOSTON (WWLP) – Passionate testimony rang out in the State House on Friday from parents, children, and physicians on both sides of the vaccine mandates for school children debate. The State House's public health committee heard testimony on multiple vaccine bills, including an extremely contentious piece of legislation that would eliminate religious exemptions to vaccine mandates in schools. Proponents of this bill see it as a way to close a loophole and keep kids safe in schools. Will you be able to get a COVID-19 shot? Here's what we know so far One doctor told 22News that she wants to work with families to ensure they feel comfortable with vaccines, while still pushing to ensure all children are protected. 'We know that children need a cocoon of immunity around them, whether they're infants, or in kindergarten, or in sixth grade,' said Dr. Mary Beth Miotto, a pediatrician. For every enthusiastic advocate for getting rid of the religious exemption, there was an equally passionate advocate to keep it. These parents and doctors testified that disallowing parents from choosing to exempt their children from vaccination is a violation of their freedoms, and only serves to keep deserving children out of school. 'Public health policy should support and empower, not harm and humiliate,' said Dr. Sylvia Fogle, a psychiatrist. Those speaking against the bills say the total harm of their passage would far outweigh their speculative benefit. Those who testified pro-vaccine say that claim is based on misinformation. The conversation around vaccine exemptions is especially relevant as the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services has voiced consistent support for getting rid of mandates. WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.