Wellness vs Science in 2026: What Actually Prevents Infections—and What’s Just Hype

The wellness industry is moving faster than science, and infection preventionists are increasingly left to sort out what actually works from what merely sounds promising.

From supplements claiming to “boost immunity” to wearables marketed as early infection detectors, wellness content often blurs the line between personal optimization and public health protection. For clinicians and infection prevention professionals, that confusion carries real consequences: misplaced confidence, wasted resources, and missed opportunities to invest in interventions that truly reduce transmission.

In this Q&A, Infection Control Today^® (ICT^®) speaks with Ali Cadili, MD, MBA, MS, a U.S. surgeon and clinical researcher specializing in surgical critical care and acute care surgery, to cut through the noise. Drawing on clinical outcomes, transmission dynamics, and real-world feasibility, Cadili offers a clear-eyed assessment of which “2026 wellness trends” belong in the legitimate infection prevention toolkit and which belong firmly in the hype bucket.

ICT: When you hear “2026 wellness trends,” what do you immediately put in the legit bucket for infectious disease prevention, and what goes straight into the hype bucket? What criteria are you using (clinical outcomes, transmission dynamics, real-world feasibility, equity, cost)?

Ali Cadili, MD, MBA, MS: Legit trends include hygiene and handwashing, vaccination, improved air quality (especially indoor) and ventilation, gut health optimization with fiber-rich foods and probiotics. Hype bucket: unproven supplements which claim immune-boosting effects, vacations marketed as boosting immunity through physical activity in "clean environments," and personalized "biohacking" apps and wearable devices. The main criteria for deciding include evidence and data on clinical outcomes, as well as specific disease and transmission dynamics.

ICT: Which trend do you think will have the biggest measurable impact on respiratory virus spread in everyday settings (home, schools, workplaces)? What does the evidence actually show, and what’s the most common misunderstanding you’re seeing online or in your practice?

AC: Improved indoor air quality and ventilation for home and public spaces, handwashing, and basic hygiene principles in hospitals and medical centers. Evidence shows that improved indoor ventilation and air quality lower COVID-19 incidence in schools and minimize aerosol buildup. A common misconception is that hand hygiene and surface cleanliness (wiping) alone are adequate in preventing respiratory (lung) viruses. This ignores the all-pervasive airborne route via aerosol particles.

ICT: Much of wellness content blurs “immune support” with infection prevention. What claims are scientifically plausible, which are overstated, and what red flags should clinicians and consumers watch for (dose, endpoints, surrogate markers, conflicts of interest)?

AC: Scientifically plausible claims: vitamin D supplements, zinc, vitamin C, probiotics, as well as selenium and other micronutrients (when the person is deficient in them). Overstated claims: echinacea or elderberry (for blanket, broad immune enhancement), vitamin C or zinc as a panacea (cure-all) for infections, superfoods (such as garlic or turmeric) for comprehensive immunity, any food or supplement that is mistakenly touted as a replacement for hygiene, good air quality, and vaccinations.

Red flags include mega doses of supplements (such as vitamin D) linked to extraordinary or sweeping claims, using surrogate markers such as cytokine levels or antibody titers to support extraordinary claims (such as reducing infection or boosting immunity by 1000%), influencers or endorsers with conflicts of interest, and supplements with only studies produced by the manufacturer without independent scientific verification.

ICT: What is the current state of play on “wearables and AI” for infection prevention? Which use cases are realistic (early symptom detection, exposure notification, indoor air monitoring), and where do you worry we’re overpromising or creating false reassurance?

AC: High risk of overpromising accuracy, leading to a false sense of security and/or delinquency or laxness in proven and time-honored methods of preventing infections. They show promise in early symptom detection, notification of exposure, and indoor air quality monitoring. However, there is definitely hype in overstating their accuracy, and there are also significant privacy risks and concerns.

ICT: There is renewed interest in environmental controls (air cleaning, Far-UV, antimicrobial surfaces, “cleaning hacks”). What actually reduces transmission risk, what depends heavily on context, and what questions should a facility ask before investing (validation, safety, maintenance, workflow fit)?

AC: Practices which actually reduce transmission risk: air cleaning, HEPA filters, far-UV light, and antimicrobial coated surfaces such as silver and copper. Depends heavily on context: standard ventilation and air circulation systems, DIY and home-based disinfectants, chemical disinfectants, and routine surface cleaning. Questions: efficacy data and evidence, safety, maintenance requirements, longevity, and overall fit with existing milieu.

ICT: If you had to give one “2026-proof” playbook for preventing infectious diseases that cuts through trend cycles, what are the top 3 actions you’d prioritize—and how would you measure success?

AC: Basic hygiene practices, ventilation, and indoor air quality, vaccinations. Success measured: infection rate and death rate (most important), compliance, and ventilation targets.

ICT: Would you please provide guidance on mask use (which masks?) and the 6-foot rule? Do they really work, and what do you say to those who say they don’t work?

AC: I recommend well-fitting N95 masks over cloth masks to minimize aerosol transmission; the next best option is surgical masks. The 6-foot rule does work in indoor and crowded settings, but more is better, since evidence has shown that aerosols can linger and travel longer than this distance. To skeptics, I would empathize that masking and distancing may cause inconvenience and are by no means perfect, but there is evidence to back their utility; this situation may be similar to how seatbelts do not prevent all car crash injuries but have been shown to save lives.