How to communicate evidence against catchy erroneous arguments?

In a workshop at the European Public Health conference 2025, we deployed forum theatre alongside traditional presentations to examine our ability as public health professionals to communicate evidence informed, practical messages that foreground protecting public health and to convince a public health audience to support them. Participants were asked to intervene as participators in a staged debate between pro-WHO and anti-WHO politicians in a fictional parliament. The pro-WHO side used evidence-based arguments, whereas the anti-WHO side used misinformation and populist arguments, claiming that WHO is distant, politicised, unaccountable, hides information from ‘ordinary people’, suggesting that national sovereignty should replace global cooperation and multilateral governance. These inaccurate arguments were deliberately framed to evoke identity, frustration, and distrust—features known to increase persuasive power and limit scrutiny of the underpinning arguments [1].