Nearly half the respondents in a Swiss survey considered it plausible that the coronavirus had been manufactured as a biological weapon in a Chinese laboratory. More than a third gave some credence to an antisemitic claim that Jewish networks secretly control much of Western politics.
The findings come from a study by the University of Zurich’s Research Centre for the Public Sphere and Society, known as fög. Researchers surveyed 1,222 internet users aged 18–79 in German- and French-speaking Switzerland in July 2026. They examined how people perceive disinformation and what makes them more or less susceptible to unsupported conspiracy claims.
Respondents assessed 12 statements, presented individually in random order. Six concerned events the researchers classified as true or well supported, such as the manipulation of emissions tests by German carmakers. The other six were claims the researchers classified as unsupported or implausible. Mixing the two was intended to discourage respondents from dismissing every statement automatically.
The coronavirus biological-weapon claim attracted the greatest acceptance: 17.5% judged it “very plausible” and 31.9% “rather plausible”. Its wording matters. It alleged deliberate manufacture as a weapon; it did not merely suggest a possible laboratory-related origin for the pandemic.
Next came the claim that political elites encourage immigration into Europe to change its population, which 40.5% considered rather or very plausible. The corresponding figures were 36.9% for the claim that governments use climate change as a pretext to control people, 36% for the antisemitic claim about Jewish networks, and 33.8% for the assertion that 5G communications have been proved to cause serious harm to health. Some 28.3% considered it plausible that the American government itself carried out the September 11th attacks.
These figures need to be interpreted carefully. Judging something “rather plausible” can express doubt as well as belief. Even so, the widespread willingness to entertain such claims is striking.
The study’s most useful finding concerns news habits. Respondents who regularly used established news organisations, including public broadcasting and subscription newspapers, were less susceptible to the six unsupported claims than those who consumed little journalism.
Occasional exposure to news through platforms such as Instagram and TikTok made no difference. Nor did heavy consumption of a broad mixture of sources, including social media platforms and alternative media. More information didn’t bring greater clarity.
The ability to recognise misleading arguments mattered. People who could spot cherry-picked evidence, false comparisons and excessive generalisations were less inclined to accept the implausible conspiracy claims. Higher education was associated with lower susceptibility; age and gender were not significantly associated with it.
The authors recommend stronger news provision, more visible fact-checking and education that helps people recognise manipulation and falsehood. In addition, nearly four-fifths of respondents favoured expanding fact-checking team at news providers.
More on this:
Fög report (in German)
For more stories like this on Switzerland follow us on Facebook and X.
Leave a Reply