How to Talk to a Germ Denier – Without Losing Your Mind or Credibility

Germ denial is a worldview that questions the very foundation of modern medicine and public health. Whether we encounter it in clinic rooms, community forums, family gatherings, or online discussions, engaging with germ deniers requires a thoughtful approach that may include simply not engaging.

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.

Table of Contents

• Step 1: Know Who You’re Talking To
• Step 2: Manage Your Goals
• Step 3: Address the Outrage
• Step 4: Use the “Feel, Felt, Found” Approach
• Step 5: Name the Kernel of Truth, Then Redirect
• Step 6: Keep It Relatable
• Step 7: Set Boundaries and Know When to Exit
• Step 8: Offer a Lifeline for the Future
• The 4 Communication Outcomes
• Going Beyond Individual Efforts
• Frequently Asked Questions

Step 1: Know Who You’re Talking To

Not all skeptics are the same. Before engaging, assess whether the person is:

• Curious but unsure: They ask questions, are open to evidence, and may be misinformed, not ideologically opposed.
• Committed believer: They reject evidence that contradicts their views and often repeat misinformation.
• Performative denier: They challenge you to provoke or win social approval from others, rather than to genuinely engage and reconsider their views.

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:

• Model respectful, fact-based communication.
• Preserve relationships or boundaries when needed.
• Provide accurate information for bystanders or silent listeners. This can be people physically present or in the comments section of an online discussion.

Step 3: Address the Outrage

Risk communications expert Peter Sandman argues that risk communication must address “hazard + outrage.” Hazard is the measurable probability 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”:

“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 involve a small truth wrapped in distortion.

• Truth: Nutrition and sanitation improve health.
• Distortion: Therefore, vaccines and germ theory are unnecessary.

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 or “doctor speak.” Use analogies, such as, “You can have a strong immune system, but you still wear a seatbelt, right?” Use visuals, 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:

• Repeating disproven claims,
• Personally attacking you,
• Clearly uninterested in honest dialogue

Try phrases like:

• “I respect your right to your beliefs, and I hope we can agree to disagree.”
• “I don’t think we’re going to change each other’s minds today, but I appreciate the conversation.”
• “I need to step away, but I’m happy to share a link or article if you’re curious later.”

Step 8: Offer a Lifeline for the Future

Even if you don’t persuade someone today, plant seeds that might grow later.

Offer:

• Credible sources, such as CDC, WHO, peer-reviewed studies.
• First-person stories: “I saw a healthy child nearly die from flu. That’s when I changed my thinking.”
• A chance to revisit the conversation: “If you ever want to talk more, I’m here” or “We don’t have to finish the conversation now, because these things take time.”

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.

1. They change their mind.
   This is the best possible outcome. It’s rare, but it happens—especially when you lead with empathy, share personal stories, use trustworthy facts, and find common ground in shared values.
2. They agree to disagree.
   This is still a good outcome. If the conversation stays respectful, it’s fine to acknowledge the disagreement and step away. You’ve done your part.
3. They stay silent.
   Don’t dismiss this as a failure. Even if the person you’re speaking to doesn’t respond, others may be listening. Those bystanders might actually change their minds.
4. They become more extreme.
   This is the one to avoid. If you sense the conversation is escalating, back off. Mockery, overexposure, or relentless pushing often has the opposite effect. It hardens beliefs rather than softening them.

Going Beyond Individual Efforts

Germ denial thrives in a vacuum of trust. We also need institutions to change.

Health agencies must invest in communication infrastructure as seriously as they invest in laboratories. That includes rapid-response capacity: ready-to-deploy visuals, videos, and messages to counter misinformation before it shapes popular opinion. 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 your job to win every argument. Sometimes the most powerful act is knowing when to speak and when to step away.

Frequently Asked Questions