How to Talk to a Germ Denier
How to address infectious disease misinformation with empathy and boundaries.
Posted June 3, 2025 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk
Germ denial is a worldview that questions the foundations of modern medicine and public health. Whether we are in clinic rooms, community forums, family gatherings, or online discussions, engaging with germ deniers requires a thoughtful approach that includes the possibility of simply not engaging at all.
Are Infections the Result of Bad Choices We Make?
At its core, germ denial is an emotionally compelling belief that we have total control over our health through personal choices alone. If we eat the right food, exercise correctly, take the right supplements, and think positively, we will be healthy and successful.
As physician David Gorski has written , this belief is seductive because it replaces uncertainty with a sense of mastery. It tells people that illness is the result of choices, that it doesn’t strike randomly. It also flatters the individual: I’m healthy because I’m smart and disciplined. That’s a far more comforting story than one that includes vulnerability, chance, and shared responsibility.
To push back effectively, we need to draw from evidence-based principles in science communication and acknowledge the emotional, cultural, and identity -driven dimensions of belief.
Step 1: Know Who You’re Talking To
Not all skeptics are the same. Before engaging, assess whether the person is:
Step 2: Manage Your Goals
Engaging a committed believer or performative denier can be emotionally draining and ineffective. You are not obligated to debate someone who views your profession, training, or humanity as a threat. Sometimes, the most rational response is to walk away.
Regardless of who you are talking to, you are not trying to win . Your goal is to:
Step 3: Address the Outrage
Risk communications expert Peter Sandman argues that risk communication must address “hazard + outrage.” Hazard is quantifiable: the likelihood of an event occurring and the damage to health if it occurs. Outrage is the emotional component. Sandman argues you must acknowledge the fears and emotions driving someone’s beliefs just as much as you address the facts of the hazard.
First, acknowledge their concerns, such as, “It makes sense to worry about what goes into your body.” Or “You’re right that many people feel dismissed or unheard by the healthcare system.”
Second, respond to emotion with empathy, then gently offer facts framed in shared values.
Step 4: Use the “Feel, Felt, Found” Approach
A popular method for reducing defensiveness is the “feel, felt, found” approach:
“I understand how you feel . A lot of people are skeptical of vaccines or germ theory. I’ve felt the same concern myself when I saw how complicated the science can be. But what I’ve found is that [insert fact or personal experience].”
This preserves dignity while allowing you a way to introduce evidence gently.
Step 5: Name the Kernel of Truth, Then Redirect
Many conspiracy theories contain a small truth wrapped in a distortion.
Acknowledge the truth, then reframe, “Yes, eating well does help your immune system. But even the healthiest people can still die of meningitis or measles without protection from vaccines.”
Step 6: Keep It Relatable
Avoid jargon. Use analogies, such as “You can have a strong immune system, but you still wear a seatbelt, right?” Use metaphors, such as “Think of vaccines as a practice drill for your immune system. They prepare your body to fight off infection before it encounters the real thing.”
Step 7: Set Boundaries and Know When to Exit
It’s OK to end the conversation if someone is:
Step 8: Offer a Lifeline for the Future
Even if you don’t persuade someone today, plant seeds that might grow later.
The 4 Communication Outcomes
When you're communicating with someone who holds a strong or misinformed view, there are four possible outcomes. Only one of them is ideal.
Going Beyond Individual Efforts
Germ denial thrives in a vacuum of trust. Therefore, I believe we also need institutions to change.
Health agencies must invest in communication infrastructure as seriously as they invest in laboratories. It means building teams with psychologists, social scientists, and community leaders. It also means listening to communities before issuing guidance, not only after resistance emerges.
Employers, religious leaders, and local officials also play a role. People trust messengers more than messages. We need to work through individuals who hold that trust.
Every respectful conversation is a chance to defend science and preserve social bonds. But it’s not possible to convince everyone. Sometimes the most important decision is knowing when to speak and when to step away.
Share this post Facebook Bluesky Linkedin Email
There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.
By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
Jay K. Varma, M.D., is a physician and epidemiologist with expertise in the prevention and control of infectious diseases. He is formerly with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This article is part of the Bringwise Psychology Journal — daily insights on human behavior, mental health, and personal growth.