Divisive health beliefs span the globe, highest in the developing nations of India (89%) and South Africa (88%), lowest in Japan, Canada, and the U.S. (50–61%). The divisive health beliefs apply equally across educational levels (university–degreed versus non-university–degreed) and are more acute among young people (79% for ages 18–34) and right-leaning voters (78%), though majorities hold for ages 55 and older (60%) and the left-leaning (64%). It is striking that only a slight majority (52%) say it is false that the risks of childhood vaccination outweigh the benefits, while slightly over one third (36%) of respondents say it is false that adding fluoride to drinking water is harmful — a public health staple in many Anglophone countries since the 1960s.

The one-year drop in confidence (−10 points to 51%) in people’s ability to make informed health decisions for themselves and their families is staggering. From China to the UAE to Mexico, the majority of people feel their country is divided on key health issues, potentially leading to a profound loss of trust in the healthcare system. Artificial intelligence has already displaced medical expertise in the eyes of many; doctors are competing to influence health decisions with AI, peers, friends and other non-credentialed sources.

More information alone is not the way out of this. Those with more divisive health beliefs are in fact more immersed in information, with on average two thirds saying that they frequently consume health news or consult AI platforms for answers — double or triple the engagement of those who believe no divisive claims. They are nearly three times as likely to read health news from different political orientations. The data reveals deep confusion: they are also more likely to be getting mixed advice from credentialed and uncredentialed voices, and so it follows that they’re three times more likely to disregard health care provider medical guidance in favor of advice from friends, family, or social media in the past year than those who disbelieve divisive health claims. This is not a story of too little — it’s a matter of too much information without proper context.

Science needs a reset to adapt to this unstable world of trust, offering a new deal to patients and health providers. To date, institutional science has solely focused on the WHAT, expressed by top-down communication from credentialed authority figures. That is no longer sufficient for those with skepticism about global institutions, experts, and government born of the COVID-19 ordeal. The HOW must be explained in simple terms, using data visualizations and with greater transparency on clinical trial processes. The WHY requires acknowledgement of benefits versus side effects and the relative value of the innovation versus cost.

Here is a five-point communications strategy for health-sector leaders:

1.                  Institutions and providers alike need to show up as guides, not advocates.

2.                  Trust must be brokered across groups with different views, elevating shared goals without needing to achieve unanimity.

3.                  Acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers. This transparency is, in fact, built into the scientific method.

4.                  Frequency, frequency, frequency. People need to hear—and be heard—multiple times before they consider a recommendation on health.

5.                  Surround sound. Utilize a broader circle of trust, valuing friends and family and patient advocacy groups alongside medical experts.

It is time for science to go on offense, to recognize the futility of facts alone, and bring the public along as partner in a better life. 

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.