This is terrific advice. I particularly appreciated point 9, “maintain skepticism,” and within it, this: “That’s especially important if the information you are encountering reaffirms your worldview.” None of us are immune. Thinking independently is really hard work, but also immensely rewarding.
As part of a sniff test take a hard look at the language being used within the article. Is the author attempting to defame or disparage a person or a group or are they presenting facts to support their opinion or argument. A true factual article or opinion doesn’t need to disparage the opposing view in order to promote their side or opinion.
I think the problem is that the people who most need this information are least likely to read it, and if they ddo read it, are least likely to follow it. I think to address this provlem, it needs to be part of our early education system.
I completely agree. The challenge is that this is a solution for 10 years from now instead of the fires today. Both are needed. (Also, I admit, I have fallen for falsehoods before, so I think we all need to improve, including myself.)
Ten years from now will forever be "ten years from now" - kind of like the promise of fusion energy, or a decade of hearing Trump promise that his plan to replace the ACA will be released "in two weeks."
Among the people I've worked with online to combat anti-vaccine malinformation, we've been discussing the need for "early education" to raise people with tools to resist the siren songs of frauds and grifters at least since 2009.
Sadly, there are a lot of people whose strategy to implement their social agenda is based on creating and maintaining an under-educated underclass.
I just became a paid sub so I could post this note, as it seems rich for someone inside the approved class of public experts to preach about how to spot lies and mis-info; have you shared how Biden et al was censoring the non-approved-narratives by people like Dr. McCullough, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and which is fully discussed in the lawsuit here ( https://nclalegal.org/case/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-schmitt-et-al-v-biden-et-al/ )? Or, in a just released house report (today), it is clear the FBI influenced the 2020 election -- just search this name of the report: ELECTION INTERFERENCE: HOW THE FBI “PREBUNKED” A TRUE STORY ABOUT THE BIDEN FAMILY’S CORRUPTION IN ADVANCE OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Or how in this report ( https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/We_Can_Do_This_NIH_PR_Campaign_Report_PUBLIC_82616d81eb.pdf ), borrowing from attorney Jeff Childers:
Nope. They just lied. They lied, and they exaggerated stuff, to terrify people. Their lies were so bloody awful and so preposterous that nobody would have ever listened to them — except that they put the full weight and credit of the United States government behind their lies and fearmongering to make the whole grotesque scheme work. In doing so, they consumed every drop of historic trust earned by previous generations of hard-working public servants.
so, it is clear you and your views are being protected and shielded from contrary views by our government and the press (and academia, and institutions like private corps and churches), and you rely on this protection by knowing it (the machine) will not out or disagree with your views about what is or is not mis/dis/mal info, and so you have free reign to disparage and denounce all views that are contra your own or your mission or your ideology.
shame on you -- this is not a free-speech zone where you accept and are forced to address competing views; I challenge you to acknowledge and respond to the 3 items I've noted (there is much much more), the lawsuit showing Biden censored Americans from giving and receiving critical information, the report showing the FBI influenced the 2020 election, and the report showing our own gov't hired a consultant (paid almost $1Billion) to lie to us about covid.
I'm surprised about two things with your comment, though: 1. the assumption that I disparage and denounce all views that are contra to my own, as I gave examples of the Left and the Right in there. And, 2. I'm surprised we cannot even agree there is a difference between legitimate questions vs. a well-coordinated, well-funded disinformation campaign pushed by power and money.
the point I'm making is about the capture and censoring of dissenting views by almost every significant institution, which results in massive coercion and manipulation -- we suffered under it via our own church (no vaccine, no entrance! -- no exemption from vaccine, even due to an objection of conscience), via our children at school, and via family and friends at work -- people died and their lives have been ruined because dissenting voices were blocked, which framed the story that unfortunately shaped many peoples' views that the vaccine was the only path forward; there will be countless studies and lawsuits that drill down into this massive manipulation, likely over the course of my life and my children's lives; this is the no 1 threat to our society/country we have, we no longer have an honest, transparent or accountable government, media, medical profession, academic environment, workplace, or church home. Almost all of the entities within those groups fell in line with the 'approved narrative' -- until there is an honest recognition and ownership for the real causes of the wide-spread harm, there will be no healing. AND THEY WERE NOT JUST MISTAKES -- IT WAS INTENTIONAL FROM THE HIGHEST LEVELS.
As an actual Virologist I deeply resent the accusations you are making. Without getting into the Biden part, because I have no specialized expertise in government or politics, I do have expertise in Virology. So I can say with confidence that Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has been very badly wrong about the scientific facts on COVID-19.
There are many qualified voices on both sides of the argument. :Please spare us your "deep resentment". If anyone should be resentful it would be the professionals who lost their licenses, tenures and affiliations for respectfully dissenting.
Mr. Healy - whether wrong or not, to have his opinions prevented from reaching as wide an audience as possible, or at least as wide as people who disagreed enjoyed, is contrary to the commitments our government made to you and me. And the point of me specifically naming three actual documented instances/examples of censorship is to highlight how dangerous our country is becoming -- it may not have seemed to impact people as much who aligned with the common views shared/broadcast by those institutions I named, but I would argue it has by deeply injuring our entire society; plus, for now it may not seem real or dangerous to you as your views and/or intelligence gathering may not have been limited (as far as you know). We no longer have a zealous or free press, on any side, and this hurts us all.
I also judge general news media organizations by how accurately they report stories that happen to be in my areas of domain knowledge (Virology, Drug Discovery, Genetics, Electrical Engineering, and Energy Policy). Since I don't know much about Ukraine or The Middle East, my heuristic for which news outlets to trust on subjects about which I lack knowledge is, how do they do on topics where I do have relevant background.
I could use some help here -- not finding it on google. There is a large, private group connected to my daughter's neuro-genetic disease, Angelman Syndrome. Right now there are a bunch of anti-vaxxers on there sharing research and encouraging people not to get important boosters for their teenage children-- mumps, measles, pertussis. Most of their "research" comes from antivax resources. But one of their claims is a navy ship that had a mumps outbreak when all the soldiers had their boosters. Well, I googled and damn if that's not true! Was there ever an explanation about that? And do you have other sources I can share that show that vaccines work and how important they are in public health? Normally, I don't engage conspiracy theorists, but there are people on there who are considering not getting their children boosters because they're worried about seizures from possible fevers. (Our kids develop seizure disorders around age 3.) I already made the case that a febrile seizure is much better than getting any of these diseases. I'm old enough to have had the mumps, and I was so sick that it would be horrible for my daughter if she should get it. Thanks.
Marianne, a big hug to you as you raise a child with Angelman syndrome! I have seen patients with this and have seen how this affects kids and parents. Kudos to you for vaccinating your child as you are absolutely right to want to prevent diseases whenever possible.
This is a list of reliable vaccine information sources:
Yes, there have been well known outbreaks of mumps among hockey players and sailors. This does not prove that the MMR vaccine, given in this country at age 12 months and 4 to 5 years (sometimes combined as the MMRV vaccine at age 4 or 5) does not work. The measles component of that vaccine prevents a much more serious disease than mumps, extremely effectively. The rubella component prevents congenital rubella syndrome in the population, extremely effectively. By getting that vaccine, you are preventing serious illness, encephalitis, seizures, death, fetal demise, intellectual impairment, deafness, retinal problems in the population. Unfortunately, the mumps component has less effectiveness and this wanes with time; hence the outbreaks. But - the more people who get the vaccine, the more effective it is because of the herd immunity effect where the disease can't take hold in the population as easily. Febrile seizures from this vaccine are rare; they occur in about 4 of every 10,000 individuals, and they generally occur 7 to 21 days after the vaccine. Pertussis is another one where the other components of the DTaP or Tdap vaccine (tetanus and diptheria) prevent very serious diseases are extremely effective and the pertussis component is less so and wanes with time, although ongoing work may yield a more effective pertussis vaccine. Also, pertussis is most dangerous for infants and is just very unpleasant for everyone else. You and the people in your group can talk to your pediatricians and neurologists about whether to use prophylactic acetaminophen with or before vaccines to prevent fever, or just monitor closely for fever and give it at the first sign of fever, knowing that most people will not even get a fever after vaccines.
To clarify, the Tdap is given at age 11 or 12 in the US, along with a quadrivalent meningitis vaccine (other meningitis vaccines are given at other ages in other countries or in areas with different risk profiles). So, the people in this group may be talking about Tdap or quadrivalent meningitis vaccines. Believe me, the people in your group do not want their kids to get meningitis either!
While well intending the author clearly doesn't seem to realize their strategy backfires immediately. It's kind of amazing that this isn't obvious to more people here.
1) "Basic sniff test. If vaccines are causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, wouldn’t we have overwhelmed morgues?"
Okay. If Covid took 350-400 thousand lives in 2020 why weren't the morgues overwhelmed? The reality is that a half million excess US deaths in a year would go relatively unnoticed until some health authority mentioned it. That's because only about 1 in 110 people die per year in this country. In 2020 it was closer to 1 in 100. Nobody would have noticed...
2) "Follow the money." Don't get me started. While the public is warned about "grifters" selling snake oils it's apparently okay for vaccine manufacturers to make several hundred BILLION dollars on products that we were mandated to accept while avoiding any liability if their product hurt anybody.
3) “hydroxychloroquine obviously stops Covid-19 infections.” Ask them how they know it. Once you do, you’ll have evidence to analyze.
Okay. Analyze this:
https://c19hcq.org/meta.html. It's a meta analysis of 418 studies showing anywhere between 21 to 76% efficacy depending on the outcome
4) "Find a second source. If you can only find a claim made by one source, there is a good chance something is fishy. See if it’s being confirmed in a more reputable news outlet."
What is a reputable news outlet? Would it be legacy media that takes hundreds of millions of dollars in ad revenue from big Pharma?
5) "Do two minutes of targeted research. If we see a claim, plug it into a search engine like Google or DuckDuckGo. "
Search engines like google are far from neutral. We really don't know that?
6) "Read the comments and replies. If a claim is being shared, there is often a space for people to reply or comment. The replies and comments usually contain dissenting voices. "
Ahem, seriously? This very newsletter allows comments only from paying subscribers. Aside from of a handful of us who have been dissenting over the years here, this is a massive echo chamber.
7) "Consult the experts."
The experts have failed us. This is why you have felt the need to run a series of pieces explaining "what we got wrong". Faith in experts is in a free fall. Calls to consult them is only going to backfire more right now.
8) "Maintain skepticism." "...don’t believe in dramatic or jaw-dropping claims without trying to follow these steps"
Jaw dropping claims? You mean like the vaccine has a 95% efficacy against symptomatic Covid infection?? Is it any surprise that a few months later there was massive back-pedaling on these claims?
If the public maintained skepticism with regard to CDC claims we wouldn't have mandated the shots and we wouldn't be in this crisis of trust right now.
This is incredibly helpful. For 20 years I taught a British history curriculum overseas; it emphasized source evaluation (provenance, biases, usefulness for your purpose, primary or secondary, for reliability). It seems we don't emphasize this as much n the US.
This is terrific advice. I particularly appreciated point 9, “maintain skepticism,” and within it, this: “That’s especially important if the information you are encountering reaffirms your worldview.” None of us are immune. Thinking independently is really hard work, but also immensely rewarding.
Thank you. Excellent advice
As part of a sniff test take a hard look at the language being used within the article. Is the author attempting to defame or disparage a person or a group or are they presenting facts to support their opinion or argument. A true factual article or opinion doesn’t need to disparage the opposing view in order to promote their side or opinion.
Here's my "sniff test"…
If it's on Facebook or tick-tock or instagram or any of the other internet sink holes, it's likely BS.
If it came from Trump or Ladippo or DeathSentnece or RFK Jr or any of the other film–flamers, its BS.
If someone claims god told them the info in a dream or a Mercedes showroom, it's BS.
Incomplete
Excellent post. Thank you.
I think the problem is that the people who most need this information are least likely to read it, and if they ddo read it, are least likely to follow it. I think to address this provlem, it needs to be part of our early education system.
I completely agree. The challenge is that this is a solution for 10 years from now instead of the fires today. Both are needed. (Also, I admit, I have fallen for falsehoods before, so I think we all need to improve, including myself.)
Ten years from now will forever be "ten years from now" - kind of like the promise of fusion energy, or a decade of hearing Trump promise that his plan to replace the ACA will be released "in two weeks."
Among the people I've worked with online to combat anti-vaccine malinformation, we've been discussing the need for "early education" to raise people with tools to resist the siren songs of frauds and grifters at least since 2009.
Sadly, there are a lot of people whose strategy to implement their social agenda is based on creating and maintaining an under-educated underclass.
I just became a paid sub so I could post this note, as it seems rich for someone inside the approved class of public experts to preach about how to spot lies and mis-info; have you shared how Biden et al was censoring the non-approved-narratives by people like Dr. McCullough, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and which is fully discussed in the lawsuit here ( https://nclalegal.org/case/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-schmitt-et-al-v-biden-et-al/ )? Or, in a just released house report (today), it is clear the FBI influenced the 2020 election -- just search this name of the report: ELECTION INTERFERENCE: HOW THE FBI “PREBUNKED” A TRUE STORY ABOUT THE BIDEN FAMILY’S CORRUPTION IN ADVANCE OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Or how in this report ( https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/We_Can_Do_This_NIH_PR_Campaign_Report_PUBLIC_82616d81eb.pdf ), borrowing from attorney Jeff Childers:
Nope. They just lied. They lied, and they exaggerated stuff, to terrify people. Their lies were so bloody awful and so preposterous that nobody would have ever listened to them — except that they put the full weight and credit of the United States government behind their lies and fearmongering to make the whole grotesque scheme work. In doing so, they consumed every drop of historic trust earned by previous generations of hard-working public servants.
so, it is clear you and your views are being protected and shielded from contrary views by our government and the press (and academia, and institutions like private corps and churches), and you rely on this protection by knowing it (the machine) will not out or disagree with your views about what is or is not mis/dis/mal info, and so you have free reign to disparage and denounce all views that are contra your own or your mission or your ideology.
shame on you -- this is not a free-speech zone where you accept and are forced to address competing views; I challenge you to acknowledge and respond to the 3 items I've noted (there is much much more), the lawsuit showing Biden censored Americans from giving and receiving critical information, the report showing the FBI influenced the 2020 election, and the report showing our own gov't hired a consultant (paid almost $1Billion) to lie to us about covid.
Thanks for your comment.
First, I'm sorry you had to pay to write this comment; it must have really struck a nerve. I'll refund your payment.
Second, I'm more than happy to engage in a conversation re: Covid, because I agree that mistakes were made. In fact, I would be curious of your take on our mini-series on "why public health lost trust" (https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/why-is-trust-in-vaccines-declining) or my conversation with Kelley a few months ago (https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/why-did-we-lose-trust-during-the?utm_source=publication-search). I didn't see you engaging with either, which is too bad as there's a lot to unpack.
I'm surprised about two things with your comment, though: 1. the assumption that I disparage and denounce all views that are contra to my own, as I gave examples of the Left and the Right in there. And, 2. I'm surprised we cannot even agree there is a difference between legitimate questions vs. a well-coordinated, well-funded disinformation campaign pushed by power and money.
the point I'm making is about the capture and censoring of dissenting views by almost every significant institution, which results in massive coercion and manipulation -- we suffered under it via our own church (no vaccine, no entrance! -- no exemption from vaccine, even due to an objection of conscience), via our children at school, and via family and friends at work -- people died and their lives have been ruined because dissenting voices were blocked, which framed the story that unfortunately shaped many peoples' views that the vaccine was the only path forward; there will be countless studies and lawsuits that drill down into this massive manipulation, likely over the course of my life and my children's lives; this is the no 1 threat to our society/country we have, we no longer have an honest, transparent or accountable government, media, medical profession, academic environment, workplace, or church home. Almost all of the entities within those groups fell in line with the 'approved narrative' -- until there is an honest recognition and ownership for the real causes of the wide-spread harm, there will be no healing. AND THEY WERE NOT JUST MISTAKES -- IT WAS INTENTIONAL FROM THE HIGHEST LEVELS.
As an actual Virologist I deeply resent the accusations you are making. Without getting into the Biden part, because I have no specialized expertise in government or politics, I do have expertise in Virology. So I can say with confidence that Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has been very badly wrong about the scientific facts on COVID-19.
The GBD was so wrong, scientifically, ethically, and logistically. We need to learn lessons from the pandemic to be better and smarter next time. But discussions need to be balanced and informed. Pandemic revisionism is no way forward. https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/house-select-subcommittee-gbd-and?utm_source=publication-search
There are many qualified voices on both sides of the argument. :Please spare us your "deep resentment". If anyone should be resentful it would be the professionals who lost their licenses, tenures and affiliations for respectfully dissenting.
Mr. Healy - whether wrong or not, to have his opinions prevented from reaching as wide an audience as possible, or at least as wide as people who disagreed enjoyed, is contrary to the commitments our government made to you and me. And the point of me specifically naming three actual documented instances/examples of censorship is to highlight how dangerous our country is becoming -- it may not have seemed to impact people as much who aligned with the common views shared/broadcast by those institutions I named, but I would argue it has by deeply injuring our entire society; plus, for now it may not seem real or dangerous to you as your views and/or intelligence gathering may not have been limited (as far as you know). We no longer have a zealous or free press, on any side, and this hurts us all.
I also judge general news media organizations by how accurately they report stories that happen to be in my areas of domain knowledge (Virology, Drug Discovery, Genetics, Electrical Engineering, and Energy Policy). Since I don't know much about Ukraine or The Middle East, my heuristic for which news outlets to trust on subjects about which I lack knowledge is, how do they do on topics where I do have relevant background.
Thank you. Passing this along to my children.
Superb advice. It would be great if we can find ways to introduce such material into our school programs. Is Civics still being taught anywhere?
THAT is also my question - why is Civics no longer a requirement for HS seniors?
I could use some help here -- not finding it on google. There is a large, private group connected to my daughter's neuro-genetic disease, Angelman Syndrome. Right now there are a bunch of anti-vaxxers on there sharing research and encouraging people not to get important boosters for their teenage children-- mumps, measles, pertussis. Most of their "research" comes from antivax resources. But one of their claims is a navy ship that had a mumps outbreak when all the soldiers had their boosters. Well, I googled and damn if that's not true! Was there ever an explanation about that? And do you have other sources I can share that show that vaccines work and how important they are in public health? Normally, I don't engage conspiracy theorists, but there are people on there who are considering not getting their children boosters because they're worried about seizures from possible fevers. (Our kids develop seizure disorders around age 3.) I already made the case that a febrile seizure is much better than getting any of these diseases. I'm old enough to have had the mumps, and I was so sick that it would be horrible for my daughter if she should get it. Thanks.
Marianne, a big hug to you as you raise a child with Angelman syndrome! I have seen patients with this and have seen how this affects kids and parents. Kudos to you for vaccinating your child as you are absolutely right to want to prevent diseases whenever possible.
This is a list of reliable vaccine information sources:
https://www.vaccineinformation.org/vaccine-basics/trusted-sources/
Yes, there have been well known outbreaks of mumps among hockey players and sailors. This does not prove that the MMR vaccine, given in this country at age 12 months and 4 to 5 years (sometimes combined as the MMRV vaccine at age 4 or 5) does not work. The measles component of that vaccine prevents a much more serious disease than mumps, extremely effectively. The rubella component prevents congenital rubella syndrome in the population, extremely effectively. By getting that vaccine, you are preventing serious illness, encephalitis, seizures, death, fetal demise, intellectual impairment, deafness, retinal problems in the population. Unfortunately, the mumps component has less effectiveness and this wanes with time; hence the outbreaks. But - the more people who get the vaccine, the more effective it is because of the herd immunity effect where the disease can't take hold in the population as easily. Febrile seizures from this vaccine are rare; they occur in about 4 of every 10,000 individuals, and they generally occur 7 to 21 days after the vaccine. Pertussis is another one where the other components of the DTaP or Tdap vaccine (tetanus and diptheria) prevent very serious diseases are extremely effective and the pertussis component is less so and wanes with time, although ongoing work may yield a more effective pertussis vaccine. Also, pertussis is most dangerous for infants and is just very unpleasant for everyone else. You and the people in your group can talk to your pediatricians and neurologists about whether to use prophylactic acetaminophen with or before vaccines to prevent fever, or just monitor closely for fever and give it at the first sign of fever, knowing that most people will not even get a fever after vaccines.
To clarify, the Tdap is given at age 11 or 12 in the US, along with a quadrivalent meningitis vaccine (other meningitis vaccines are given at other ages in other countries or in areas with different risk profiles). So, the people in this group may be talking about Tdap or quadrivalent meningitis vaccines. Believe me, the people in your group do not want their kids to get meningitis either!
Problem is that with confirmation bias, one slides heavily and fast down the rabbit hole.
“Hah!! I knew it!!” :-(
Great article!❤️
Great article! Sharing it far and wide.
Fantastic advice! Thank you!
While well intending the author clearly doesn't seem to realize their strategy backfires immediately. It's kind of amazing that this isn't obvious to more people here.
1) "Basic sniff test. If vaccines are causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, wouldn’t we have overwhelmed morgues?"
Okay. If Covid took 350-400 thousand lives in 2020 why weren't the morgues overwhelmed? The reality is that a half million excess US deaths in a year would go relatively unnoticed until some health authority mentioned it. That's because only about 1 in 110 people die per year in this country. In 2020 it was closer to 1 in 100. Nobody would have noticed...
2) "Follow the money." Don't get me started. While the public is warned about "grifters" selling snake oils it's apparently okay for vaccine manufacturers to make several hundred BILLION dollars on products that we were mandated to accept while avoiding any liability if their product hurt anybody.
3) “hydroxychloroquine obviously stops Covid-19 infections.” Ask them how they know it. Once you do, you’ll have evidence to analyze.
Okay. Analyze this:
https://c19hcq.org/meta.html. It's a meta analysis of 418 studies showing anywhere between 21 to 76% efficacy depending on the outcome
4) "Find a second source. If you can only find a claim made by one source, there is a good chance something is fishy. See if it’s being confirmed in a more reputable news outlet."
What is a reputable news outlet? Would it be legacy media that takes hundreds of millions of dollars in ad revenue from big Pharma?
5) "Do two minutes of targeted research. If we see a claim, plug it into a search engine like Google or DuckDuckGo. "
Search engines like google are far from neutral. We really don't know that?
6) "Read the comments and replies. If a claim is being shared, there is often a space for people to reply or comment. The replies and comments usually contain dissenting voices. "
Ahem, seriously? This very newsletter allows comments only from paying subscribers. Aside from of a handful of us who have been dissenting over the years here, this is a massive echo chamber.
7) "Consult the experts."
The experts have failed us. This is why you have felt the need to run a series of pieces explaining "what we got wrong". Faith in experts is in a free fall. Calls to consult them is only going to backfire more right now.
8) "Maintain skepticism." "...don’t believe in dramatic or jaw-dropping claims without trying to follow these steps"
Jaw dropping claims? You mean like the vaccine has a 95% efficacy against symptomatic Covid infection?? Is it any surprise that a few months later there was massive back-pedaling on these claims?
If the public maintained skepticism with regard to CDC claims we wouldn't have mandated the shots and we wouldn't be in this crisis of trust right now.
This is incredibly helpful. For 20 years I taught a British history curriculum overseas; it emphasized source evaluation (provenance, biases, usefulness for your purpose, primary or secondary, for reliability). It seems we don't emphasize this as much n the US.