What is health misinformation?

Health misinformation is false or inaccurate health information, regardless of intent — ranging from innocent misunderstanding to deliberate deception. It spans a spectrum: from minor inaccuracies about dietary supplements (low harm) to dangerous claims that unproven treatments cure cancer or that vaccines cause autism (high harm). The COVID-19 pandemic intensified health misinformation to unprecedented scale: WHO coined the term "infodemic" for the overabundance of information (accurate and inaccurate) that made it difficult to find reliable guidance. The consequences were measurable: vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation contributed to preventable COVID-19 deaths, and resurgences of measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases continue globally.

Why does health misinformation spread so effectively?

Multiple factors: Social media algorithmic amplification: engagement-optimised algorithms promote emotionally provocative content (fear, outrage) over accurate but less emotionally engaging public health information — misinformation spreads approximately 6× faster than true information on social media (Science 2018). Psychological vulnerabilities: availability bias (vivid anecdotes outweigh statistics); illusory truth effect (repetition increases perceived truth); confirmation bias (people seek information confirming existing beliefs); proportionality bias (large events seem to require large explanations). Information vacuum: when official communications are slow, uncertain or inconsistent, misinformation fills the gap. Concentrated production: 12 individuals produced 65% of COVID vaccine misinformation on social media (CCDH 2021) — a small number of motivated actors with large platforms can cause enormous damage.

Does debunking health misinformation work?

Debunking (correcting misinformation after it has been encountered and believed) has limited effectiveness and some risks. The "backfire effect" (Nyhan and Reifler, 2010) suggested that corrections can sometimes strengthen misinformed beliefs in politically charged domains — though this specific finding has not always replicated. What does work in debunking: use an alternative causal narrative (fill the causal gap left when a belief is undermined); address the emotional content; use a trusted messenger; correct once clearly and simply (not repeatedly — repetition of the false claim during correction can strengthen its accessibility). Better than debunking: prebunking (inoculation theory) — warning people about misinformation techniques before they encounter the full claims. Multiple randomised experiments confirm prebunking builds more durable resistance than debunking.

Were hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin evaluated properly for COVID-19?

Yes — properly, with large randomised controlled trials. Hydroxychloroquine: RECOVERY trial (UK, 2020) — 11,197 hospitalised patients; stopped early for futility and possible harm; no benefit on 28-day mortality (26.8% vs 25.0%, HR 1.09). WHO SOLIDARITY trial — similar results; no benefit. ORCHID trial (USA outpatients) — no benefit. Ivermectin: TOGETHER trial (Brazil, NEJM 2022) — 3,515 participants with early symptomatic COVID-19; ivermectin group vs placebo: hospitalisation or emergency visit 14.7% vs 16.3% (OR 0.90, p=0.27 — not statistically significant); no benefit. ACTIV-6 (USA, JAMA 2023) — no benefit. PRINCIPLE (UK) — no benefit. Despite five large RCTs showing no benefit, social media campaigns continued promoting both drugs — demonstrating that misinformation persistence does not depend on evidence.

How can I evaluate health claims I encounter online?

A practical framework: (1) Source: Who is making the claim? What are their credentials? Do they have conflicts of interest (financial, political)? Are they publishing in peer-reviewed journals or just on social media? (2) Consensus: What do major health organisations (WHO, NICE, CDC, ECDC) say? Is there scientific consensus or is this a genuinely contested area? (3) Evidence: Is there peer-reviewed, randomised trial evidence? Or just anecdotes, in vitro studies or observational data? (4) Mechanism: Is the claimed mechanism biologically plausible? (5) Alternative explanation: Does the claim attribute a beneficial or harmful effect to one factor while ignoring alternative explanations (confounding)? (6) Check fact-checking sites: Snopes, FullFact, WHO mythbusters, Science Feedback. (7) Consult your doctor: for claims affecting your own health decisions.

How does GMJ News cover health misinformation?

GMJ News covers WHO infodemic definition and management, the Wakefield MMR fraud (retracted 2010), the Disinformation Dozen, COVID vaccine misinformation (mRNA/DNA claim, fertility claim, microchips — all false), hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin RCT evidence (no benefit), VAERS misinterpretation, prebunking vs debunking evidence (Cambridge inoculation theory), social media algorithm amplification, the FIRST framework for clinical communication, and primary care physician trusted messenger role. GMJ position: health misinformation causes measurable preventable harm; it must be addressed proactively with communication science, not just reactive debunking.

Home › Topics › Health Misinformation & the Infodemic

Health Misinformation & the Infodemic

GMJ News knowledge hub · last reviewed September 2026 · Georgian Medical Journal

Summary Statistics Glossary GMJ news FAQ Documents Organizations Research

Health misinformation — false or misleading health information regardless of intent — has been present throughout medical history, but the COVID-19 pandemic created an “infodemic” (WHO’s term for the overabundance of information, accurate and inaccurate, that makes it hard to find trustworthy guidance during an outbreak) of unprecedented scale and consequence: the Disinformation Dozen (12 individuals) were responsible for generating 65% of all anti-vaccine content on social media in 2021, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were promoted without evidence by political leaders creating global drug shortages, and false claims that mRNA vaccines alter DNA or cause infertility spread to hundreds of millions of people despite no biological plausibility (WHO Infodemic). Prebunking — exposing people to weakened forms of misinformation before they encounter it, building cognitive resistance (analogous to vaccine-induced immunity) — has consistently outperformed debunking (correcting misinformation after it has been believed) in randomised studies, and represents the most evidence-based approach to fighting health misinformation at scale.

Key messages

Infodemic — WHO's term for misinformation overload in outbreaks

WHO defines an infodemic as "an overabundance of information — some accurate and some not — that occurs during an epidemic." During COVID-19, misinformation spread faster than the virus on social media platforms, causing people to delay vaccination, take unproven treatments and distrust public health guidance. Addressing the infodemic became a core WHO emergency response function alongside the epidemiological response.

Wakefield — one fraudulent paper, 25 years of harm

Andrew Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper (12 children, no controls, fabricated data, undisclosed conflicts of interest) claiming MMR causes autism: retracted 2010, Wakefield struck off. The result: UK MMR uptake fell from >90% to ~80%; measles returned. This is the clearest case study in health misinformation history — one fraudulent study created a belief that persists 25+ years later despite comprehensive scientific refutation across millions of children in dozens of studies.

The Disinformation Dozen — concentrated misinformation

A 2021 CCDH (Center for Countering Digital Hate) report found that 12 individuals were responsible for producing 65% of all COVID-19 anti-vaccine content shared on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. These 12 people had a combined social media following of 59 million. This concentration of misinformation production demonstrates that targeted interventions (de-platforming) could have dramatically reduced vaccine hesitancy — yet most remained on platforms throughout the crisis.

Prebunking outperforms debunking — the evidence

Jon Roozenbeek and Sander van der Linden (Cambridge): inoculation theory — exposing people to weakened misinformation (warning + technique exposure) before they encounter the full version builds cognitive resistance. Multiple randomised experiments confirm: prebunking produces significantly more misinformation resistance at 1-2 weeks vs control or debunking. "Bad News" and "GO VIRAL!" games apply this at scale. Google's "Pre-Bunk" campaign (2022) delivered prebunking to 4+ million people across EU countries.

COVID-19 misinformation — the major claims debunked

"mRNA vaccines change your DNA": false. mRNA never enters the nucleus; is degraded within 24-48 hours; cannot be reverse transcribed without reverse transcriptase (which the human genome lacks in most tissues). "Vaccines cause infertility": false. No biological mechanism; large safety surveillance (V-safe, VAERS, European yellow card) found no fertility signal. "Hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin cure COVID-19": five large RCTs (SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, TOGETHER) showed no benefit vs standard of care for either drug in COVID-19. "COVID vaccines killed more people than COVID": VAERS reports adverse events temporally after vaccination (regardless of causality); proper disproportionality analysis found no excess mortality causally attributable to vaccines.

Trusted messengers and clinical communication

The primary care physician remains the most trusted source of health information for most patients — more trusted than government, media, social media influencers or pharmaceutical companies (Wellcome Trust Global Monitor 2018, 2020). This places particular responsibility on primary care physicians: (1) to be informed about current evidence; (2) to address misinformation directly in consultations (not avoid the topic); (3) to use presumptive communication; (4) to practice motivational interviewing for hesitant patients; (5) never to dismiss or shame patients for misinformation exposure.

Key statistics

65%

of COVID anti-vaccine social media content from just 12 people (CCDH 2021)

CCDH 2021

25yr

persistent impact of Wakefield's retracted 1998 MMR-autism paper

Lancet retraction 2010

Prebunking

outperforms debunking in randomised studies — the evidence-based strategy

Roozenbeek/Cambridge

5 large RCTs

showed no COVID-19 benefit from hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin

SOLIDARITY/TOGETHER

#1 trusted

source of health information: primary care physician (Wellcome Trust 2020)

Wellcome Trust 2020

~20M lives

saved by COVID-19 vaccines in year 1 — the cost of vaccine hesitancy

Lancet ID 2022

COVID-19 misinformation claims and evidence status — WHO/ECDC

Source: WHO/ECDC. All major COVID-19 vaccine misinformation claims have been comprehensively refuted.

Glossary of key terms

Infodemic management
WHO 2020A WHO Emergency function established during COVID-19 to monitor, analyse and respond to health misinformation. Core activities: monitoring social media for emerging misinformation (Social Listening); rapid scientific review of claims; public communication (myth-busting and prebunking); working with social media platforms to flag or remove harmful misinformation; building health literacy in populations. WHO established a dedicated Infodemic Management team under the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA).

VAERS and pharmacovigilance — how to interpret adverse event reports
FDA/CDCVAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) is a passive surveillance system: anyone can submit a report of any event occurring after vaccination, regardless of whether the vaccine caused it. This is intentional — it is a safety signal detection system, not a causality database. A VAERS report that X deaths occurred after vaccination does NOT mean the vaccine caused X deaths — temporal association ≠ causation. Disproportionality analysis (detecting vaccine-associated signals): uses background rates of adverse events in unvaccinated populations to identify true safety signals. During COVID-19, VAERS data was systematically misinterpreted on social media as evidence of causality — a major driver of vaccine misinformation.

The FIRST framework
WHO/CommunicationA WHO-recommended framework for communicating about health misinformation: F — Findings: state the correct scientific facts clearly and simply. I — Inoculate: warn that misinformation techniques are being used (tell people they may encounter false claims). R — Reframe: address the emotional content of the misinformation (acknowledge the fear or concern that makes people susceptible). S — Salient: make the message personally relevant (connect to the person's own values and concerns). T — Trusted messengers: use messengers the target audience trusts (primary care physicians; community leaders; peers).

The RECOVERY and SOLIDARITY trials
NEJM/WHOTwo landmark large randomised trials evaluating repurposed drugs for COVID-19: RECOVERY (UK): evaluated multiple drugs including hydroxychloroquine (stopped early — no benefit, potential harm), dexamethasone (benefit in ventilated patients — the one clear positive result), convalescent plasma (no benefit), azithromycin (no benefit), lopinavir (no benefit). SOLIDARITY (WHO, 30 countries): evaluated remdesivir (no significant benefit), lopinavir (no benefit), hydroxychloroquine (no benefit), interferon beta (no benefit). TOGETHER (Brazil): ivermectin (no benefit vs placebo; 3,515 participants; NEJM 2022). These were the right way to evaluate repurposed drugs — rigorous, large, prospective, randomised. Social media advocacy for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin was not a substitute for this evidence.

Cognitive biases exploited by misinformation
PsychologyHealth misinformation exploits predictable cognitive vulnerabilities: Availability bias: vivid anecdotes of vaccine adverse events are more psychologically available than statistics of lives saved. Proportionality bias: people expect large events (pandemic deaths) to have large causes — a virus seems insufficient, so a conspiracy is sought. Illusory truth effect: repeated exposure to a false claim increases perceived truth (even when the claim is explicitly labelled as false on first exposure). Dunning-Kruger: people with limited health knowledge may overestimate their ability to evaluate complex medical claims. Confirmation bias: people seek information confirming pre-existing beliefs. Effective prebunking addresses these biases directly.

Social media algorithms and health misinformation
Technology/EthicsSocial media platform algorithms optimise for engagement (time on platform, clicks, shares, comments). Emotional content — particularly outrage, fear and moral indignation — generates significantly more engagement than neutral factual content. Studies show: misinformation travels faster, wider and deeper on Twitter than true information (Vosoughi, Roy, Aral, Science 2018). Anti-vaccine content generates approximately 6× more engagement per post than pro-vaccine content on Facebook. The "engagement-optimised" business model of social media platforms structurally amplifies health misinformation — independent of any individual's intent.