Science Up First - Misinformer Tactics
Excellent Art Work + Great explanations <-> We just need to switch directions!!
(Update - added a bit at the end on Nov 15)
Apparently the government funded PRO-Covid-19 VAX folk at ScienceUpFirst have identified various tactics used by the opposing side which they have nicely packaged as “Misinformer Tactics”. (By “opposing side” I am referring to those evidence-based scientists who have had and continue to have serious concerns about the LACK Of SAFETY, EFFICACY and NECESSITY of the COVID-19 injections.)
Here is a 2 pronged challenge to us all…
Can we answer:
Which side has been using these “Misinformer Tactics” the most?
And HOW does seeing the tactics illustrated help inoculate us against the next wave of state- & corporate-sponsored Misinformation?
Just because a story is repeated does not make it true. 📣📣📣
Firehose of falsehood, or firehosing, is a propaganda technique that aims to confuse and overwhelm the audience with continuous, rapid, and repetitive messaging over multiple platforms. The messaging is often false, or composed of half-truths and lacks consistency and objectivity (1).
…
It works because it uses a number of varied sources to spread its lies (4,5), as well as tapping into our needs for conformity (6). When you see something being shared by multiple sources, you are more likely to think it is true (1). With firehosing, the lies don’t even have to be believable because the goal is not to persuade, but to bombard people with so much information they become too overwhelmed to fact-check everything (3).
The best way to counter-attack firehosing is to be aware of the tactic (3), keep reporting false content to disrupt the disinformation’s flow (3), and share evidence-based information instead of getting into comment wars refuting misinformation (1).
Copied from: https://www.scienceupfirst.com/project/misinformer-tactic-firehose-of-falsehood/ which is also where the references are found.
So when we are being told by ads on busses, billboards, newspapers, social media, flyers, posters, TV shows, etc. that Covid-19 vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ and that we NEED to get them, etc. is that an example of someone fire hosing us, overwhelming us with so much continuous rapid and repeated messaging, and possibly tapping into our need for conformity? If fire hosing also includes us being bombarded with so much information that we become too overwhelmed to fact-check everything, I wish to point out that public health pro-vax messaging did not ACTUALLY provide any scientific references for anyone to try to fact check at all. Just an overwhelming bunch of fact-free messaging meant to be persuasive or even coercive.
The messaging is often false, or composed of half-truths and lacks consistency and objectivity
When I first discovered that when pro-vax advocates talked about how much “protection” the C-19 injections provided, I was stunned to learn that they only measured a rise in one type of antibody (the antibody against the spike protein part of the Covid-19 virus). There were no direct tests done to expose subjects to Corona virus itself and to see whether or not they would up an infection. And many of indirect exposure tests were done during periods of lockdowns which artificially decreased chances of exposure while artificially increasing the so-called “efficacy” of the injections…. so FALSE, or COMPOSED OF HALF-TRUTHS is a PERFECT description of the Misinforming tactics used by the PRO-VAX public health side of the argument!!
Do your thoughts ever spiral like this? 😵👇
“If I fail today’s test, then I’ll fail my class, and I won’t get my diploma. Without my diploma I won’t get the job I want; I won’t have any money and will become homeless! Therefore, if I fail my test today, I’ll become homeless.”
Misinformers know catastrophic thinking pulls on your fear and anxiety (1,2). That’s why they will use this cognitive distortion to make you believe that a minor event could lead to a catastrophic event (2,3). By using the slippery slope tactic misinformers shift your attention from the real issue toward one that is hypothetical and unfounded using extreme exaggeration, emotions, and fears (4,5).
Slippery slope arguments always have a mild start point and an extreme endpoint with no way to stop in between and no middle ground. They are fallacious as they don’t acknowledge the small probability that one event will actually lead to the catastrophic event and assume your inability to differentiate between these two opposite events (5).
When dealing with a slippery slope argument, try pointing out (5):
How pieces of information are missing
How disconnected the different events are
How far apart the start and end point are
How it would be possible to stop in the middle if desired
Copied from: https://www.scienceupfirst.com/project/misinformer-tactic-slippery-slope/
The penultimate example of catastrophic thinking that was milked to the max re: COVID-19 was the “killing your grandma” falsehood.
Slippery slope arguments always have a mild start point
Hey kids, you need to wear a mask at all times… and simply get vaccinated….
and an extreme endpoint
If you don’t, you will catch COVID and then pass that on to your grandmother AND SHE WILL DIE!
with no way to stop in between and no middle ground. They are fallacious as they don’t acknowledge the small probability that one event will actually lead to the catastrophic event
For sure - given that in children ACE-2 receptors are still very much undeveloped, the probability of children being infectious enough to be carriers of the virus was very low. The ACE-2 receptors are where the SARS-CoV-2 virus gains a foothold in adults. Without such receptors fully developed in children, the virus would generally pass through the system such that few children got severe COVID and no children died of COVID-19 in Alberta for the first two years. As such, the probability of children “killing grandma” was infinitesimally small and yet, this fear was used to keep people apart from loved ones, to justify masking and vaxxing in the young. Pretty classic “Slippery Slope”!!
When is it that a healthy amount of doubt and skepticism becomes a bad thing? When misinformers use it to question what has been scientifically proven and settled. That’s what we call doubt mongering (1,2).
The tobacco industry used this tactic to question the implication of cigarettes in lung cancer. This tactic has also appeared in climate change, and nuclear disarmament debates (1).Doubt mongers don’t try to convince you about their agenda, instead they create doubt on what’s proven scientifically. For example, instead of trying to convince you that tobacco or climate change is harmless, they state that the science is in doubt. This way they have you thinking that more information is needed before any regulation or policies are put in place (3).
A doubt monger will also (1):
Only present data that fits their agenda
Fund their own research hoping to get favorable results
Claim the solution would be more dangerous or too costly
Create the illusion of a disagreement among scientists
Publish in mainstream media to reach more people
Deflect the issue toward something irrelevant
Attack the science or the scientist’s reputation and motivation (sounds familiar? Check out our Ad Hominem attack post!)
When wondering if you may be faced with a doubt monger, ask yourself these questions (4):
Is the information coming from a legitimate source?
Is the expert specialized in the field?
Is the expert associated or paid by an organization to whom the allegations would benefit or disadvantage?
If you answered yes to one or more of these questions, you might be dealing with a doubt monger!
Copied from: https://www.scienceupfirst.com/project/misinformer-tactic-doubt-mongering/
WOW! This description couldn’t be MORE PERFECT to explain some of the tactics used by supporters of PRO-VAX public heath messaging!! Honestly, this listing of tactics does NOT at all refer to tactics used by the evidence-based scientific community, but rather by the information censors which is essentially the function that ScienceUpFirst appears to be carrying out!
Only present data that fits their agenda
Do you notice for example how so many documents provided re: vaccine studies made ZERO mention of severe long term adverse reactions or death? For example: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/how-they-work.html
Fund their own research hoping to get favorable results
Ummm, isn’t the ENTIRE PROBLEM that the manufacturers FUND THEIR OWN RESEARCH and then just bring forward their own data when it supports a certain outcome, withholding data that would shine a poor light on the process? See the 89 investigative reports on the Pfizer and Moderna trial results that were released only after court order https://dailyclout.io/home/#pfizer-reports. Then you realize that when the manufacturers are allowed to fund their own research, they are contributing to general levels of doubt as to the veracity of the research results. We have gone from governments ensuring that manufacturer’s claims and research findings were independently replicated and corroborated to watering down the requirements of manufactures for themselves “proving” safety and efficacy. The changes to Canada’s regulatory processes were clearly outlined by regulatory attorney Shawn Buckley in his testimony to the National Citizens’ Inquiry on Canada’s Covid response here. He explains that currently, there is not even the requirement on manufactures to provide sufficient data to convince Health Canada of the safety and efficacy of the products, only to indicate that sufficient evidence exists that could lead one to assume safety and efficacy. This sleight of hand in the wording has been combined with the “requirement” on Canadian regulators to release their approvals at that point. When manufacturers are allowed to cherry pick their own data to “make the case” that “evidence exists” and when that is combined with compulsion to grant the green light, it is very clear that DOUBT in the legitimacy of the whole process will eventually ensue, once Canadians are aware of these changes.
Claim the solution would be more dangerous or too costly
Right - just who claimed that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin would be DANGEROUS to human health? Who was trying to hide the fact that these two non-vaccine preventative and treatment antivirals had histories of being truly safe and effective for decades already? It wasn’t the evidence-based scientists who were safely providing early antiviral treatment to patients early in the pandemic, helping over 85 % of patients to recover AT HOME, and avoid the need for hospitalization. See here. If the folks at ScienceUpFirst were truly following the science, they should have been familiar with the various COVID-19 treatment protocols circulating internationally in early to mid 2020 BEFORE THE VAX approval process silenced the proponents of these treatment protocols. Instead, ScienceUpFirst is claiming that tactics used by the opposite side of the equation are “misinformer tactics.” Ironically, they appear unaware of how correct they are, just in the other direction!
Create the illusion of a disagreement among scientists
HELLO, respectful debate of shared findings, and continual observations and readjusting of earlier hypotheses as new information is observed and compiled IS the norm in scientific discourse. If all scientists were to always be in agreement, someone would NOT be doing their job!! It is the misinforming PRO-Vax side of the argument that is trying to make the public believe in some kind of fake unanimity.
Publish in mainstream media to reach more people
Umm, mainstream media has NOT been open to the evidence-based criticisms of government-aligned public health policy. Instead, the disinformation gurus like Prof Tim Caulfield have been posting unrestrained all over mainstream media - mongering doubt of the work done by evidence-based scientists each time it surpassed the dictates of official big-pharma aligned public health messaging.
Attack the science or the scientist’s reputation and motivation
Yup, there are plenty of examples of expert members of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance being attacked by self appointed Doubt Mongers!
Is the information coming from a legitimate source?
Is the expert specialized in the field?
Is the expert associated or paid by an organization to whom the allegations would benefit or disadvantage?
Beauty (or legitimacy) is in the eye of the beholder. Journals that rely on BigPharma advertisement or sponsorships definitely should not be considered legitimate. Imagine what the loss of ad revenue would do to publishers whose entire business model relies on remaining in the good graces of their Pharma sponsors. They would be fully aware of that conundrum and would make their editorial choices accordingly. This has long been demonstrated. See for example this 2005 article published in PLoS Med: Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies.
Attacking someone’s character does not invalidate their arguments. 📣
Ad Hominem comes from the Latin ‘to the person”. An Ad Hominem attack is used to discredit the person to invalidate their argument, rather than discrediting the argument itself (1,2). By doing so misinformers are calling for people’s emotion, which is a very powerful tool (3,4).
There are many types of Ad hominem arguments…
For details, see the entire section here: https://www.scienceupfirst.com/project/misinformer-tactic-ad-hominem-attack/ as the writers manipulate an off topic “chocolate cake” example to illustrate different argument types:
An abusive argument would directly attack you.
A credential fallacy argument would discredit your knowledge
A circumstantial argument will question the veracity of your argument because of your motive
A guilt by association argument will discredit you because of your association with something negative
A “Tu Quoque” (from the Latin “so are you”) argument will use your past actions to discredit your argument. “
So how do you deal with an Ad Hominem attack? You can:
Acknowledge the attackPoint out the irrelevance of the attack
Simply ignore the attack
Well, the classic ad hominem attacks have been to refer to anyone critical of the public health pro-vax corporate narrative as “anti-vaxxer” or “right wing” or “science denier” etc. with ZERO supporting evidence. Attacks coming from the evidence-based scientists might highlight the pro-vax advocate’s lack of awareness of up to date research, or their unwillingness to show up and present the mysterious data they appear to be using as the base for their arguments. Dr. Byram Bridle has been pointing out, in his rebuttal to Prof Tim Caulfield’s critiques, that the literature around combatting science denialism makes the clear case that to stifle “misinformation” one should point to actual science. This is not being done by the loudest critics of the evidence-based medicine side.
You know what they say… beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing… or lions in zebra stripes. 🦁
Or… accounts that share antivax content using blue and yellow graphics and the hashtag #ScienceUpFirst. Clearly they’re trying to capitalize on the trust we’ve built with our colours and style.
A common tactic used by misinformers and scam artists is to appear legit by putting on the trappings of real information sources. 🔍
It’s a versatile and effective tactic. Here are some things to watch out for:
When an account uses misleading, emotive names and hashtags that include phrases like “truth” and “freedom”
Overusing scientific jargon incorrectly to appear well-informed. For example, “The quantum interference of neural antibodies coagulates the blood serum, leading to antibody rejection and histocompatibility errors.”
Hijacking existing hashtags like #NIAW2022 or #ScienceUpFirst to gain visibility.
Using similar URLs or account names that could be easily mistyped.
Copied from: https://www.scienceupfirst.com/project/misinformer-tactic-impersonation/
Now, this too is an interesting tactic. Someone purposely created a website and a domain name for Dr. Byram Bridle and filled it with bogus content - in such a way that Dr. Bridle cannot have access to a platform illegitimately using HIS name.
https://byrambridle.com This type of online impersonation comes across as sour grapes and isn’t even funny. It certainly holds Dr. Bridle’s name hostage. To read Dr. Bridle’s actual own work, see: https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/archive. I don’t see impersonation going the other way around! Does anyone pretend to write as the TV experts using their names to share factual information those folks are not putting into the discourse? This sounds more like the domain of comedians.
Caveat - I have added #ScienceUpFirst into Twitter posts in an attempt to reach folks at that organization. Here I see they assume people do this to “gain visibility.” Interesting that they see any attempts at widening the discussion as promoting misinformation.
Correlation does not equal causation! 📣📣📣
The causal fallacy is a tactic that can trip up the best of us! Why? Our brains like to take shortcuts wherever possible. So when we see…
A followed by B .
Our brains want to jump to: A caused B.
While causation and correlation can exist at the same time, the two events are often unrelated. Even if the rooster does not crow, the sun will still come up. 🐓🌞
Here is a COVID-19 example of the causal fallacy.
Misinformer: “My cousin got the vaccine and one month later had a heart attack. The shot caused him to have a heart attack!”
Reality: The COVID-19 vaccine is not a known cause of heart attacks. Every hour approximately 12 Canadian adults diagnosed with heart disease die. With 76% of Canadians fully vaccinated, the chances of having heart disease and being vaccinated are high. The two might correlate, but vaccination is not the cause.
Copied from: https://www.scienceupfirst.com/project/misinformer-tactic-causal-fallacy/
You can tell that whenever a “misinformation guru” yells out that “correlation does not equal causation” they appear unaware of the Bradford Hill criteria which include a range of factors: temporal correlations, coherence, theoretical plausibility, specificity, dose response relationship, experimental evidence and others. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095523346 Here for example are slides from a presentation by Dr. Jessica Rose on the same topic.
The more of the Bradford-Hill criteria that come into play, the greater the likelihood of causation. While a single heart attack following the Covid-19 vaccine might not be causally related, given the preponderance of global data that DOES align with the Bradford-Hill criteria, moving forward, UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, it will only be correct to assume a correlation. Families who wish to examine whether the COVID-19 injection could have been the cause of the death might wish to learn from pathologists like US Dr. Ryan Cole which type of autopsy staining techniques proved the most accurate record of the “fingerprint” of the Covid-19 injections within the body.
Instead of being worried about a so-called Causal Fallacy, ScienceUpFirst members should worry about this fallacy they are promoting:
Reality: The COVID-19 vaccine is not a known cause of heart attacks.
Readers will note the use of the word “known”. It is hard to believe that the folks at ScienceUpFirst do not KNOW of the studies linking the Covid-19 injections with chest pain, myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure and many other cardiac related issues. To get up to speed, they can start with this catalogue of peer reviewed research on the topic: https://drtrozzi.org/2023/09/28/1000-peer-reviewed-articles-on-vaccine-injuries/
Is “natural” always better? 🍎
A lot of us have a bias towards things that appear “natural”, “organic”, or “pure”. Many are willing to pay more money on foods and medicine referred to as natural. Some believe cigarettes labeled natural are less harmful – although this is not true.
This is the cognitive bias known as Appeal to Nature.
But natural does not always mean better or safer. As the illustration suggests, harmful substances like cyanide can come from nature. Apple seeds contain a substance that releases cyanide into the blood stream. Note: don’t stress, apple seeds in small amounts do not contain enough cyanide to cause harm.
This bias can lead to some dangerous decisions in the context of COVID-19. For some this might include a preference for “natural immunity” over vaccines. It is true that both can produce a strong antibody response. But natural immunity means exposing yourself and those around you to an unpredictable virus. A virus that can cause severe illness, lifelong health repercussions, or death. Vaccines offer safe, predictable, and effective protection from COVID-19. Natural immunity does not.
Copied from: https://www.scienceupfirst.com/project/misinformer-tactic-appeal-to-nature/
Holy Crap!!! ScienceUpFirst has really done it here! I wonder who they get to write these blurbs! That person would have been living under a rock for three years! And anyone who authorized the publication of that text needs to be examined closely.
Not only is this text a piece of pure propaganda, it is also false!
Labelling Cigarettes as Natural! Calling the marketing appeal to nature a “cognitive bias”! Claiming that in order to achieve natural immunity one needs to expose oneself to an unpredictable virus (one that causes everything from severe illness, lifelong health repercussions or even death) while vaccines offer safe, predictable and effective protection from COVID-19 is patently aimed at misleading readers.
Have these folks NEVER heard the kind of info that the rest of us have? How much (or how little) science have they really been following of late? If they still really think that the Covid-19 injections are safe, here is another place for them to start their re-education: 'Spikeopathy': COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA.
It appears they are all following a much more basic MISINFORMER TACTIC - that of PURPOSEFUL LIES!!!
Moving right along…
LOOK OVER THERE 👀👉
A red herring is a misdirection used by mystery writers and misinformers alike. This logical fallacy uses parallel arguments that sound relevant, but are meant to lead you off the trail.
Here is an example of a conversation that includes a red herring argument:
Science Up First: “the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective,”
Misinformer: “If you cared about safety you would recommend ivermectin”
Red herrings can distract from the point at hand (vaccine safety) to redirect the conversation (ivermectin).
Think you’re being misdirected? Ask yourself if the information provided is relevant.
Copied from: https://www.scienceupfirst.com/project/misinformer-tactic-red-herring/
Oh, so if someone abruptly changes the topic, they are providing a “red herring” are they? This one works both ways. If for example, someone were to point out that quite some time back, the head of the CDC admitted that vaccines no longer prevent transmission, suddenly the pro-vax community changed the topic to “Oh, but they reduce the severity of the disease.” Redirecting the conversation happens each time someone gets close to hitting a truth that someone else wished to keep hidden. In the example above, only someone who is not aware of how the banning of ivermectin for use with Covid-19 led to an unnecessary increase in hospitalizations, disabilities and deaths would assume that for someone to bring up that concern is to purposely change the topic. For more on how Ivermectin would have been an excellent tool in the battle against COVID-19 please listen to these witness testimonies. https://rumble.com/user/NationalCitizensInquiryCA?q=ivermectin
===============
We are seeing (sadly) a clear case of reverse projection!
We assume that ScienceUpFirst will go on receiving government funding to continue its activities. They seem unaware that their publications, when seen in the light of revelations like this one
are what causes the citizenry to lose its trust in the once revered public institutiuons.
Possibly, they will soon illustrate more “Misinformer Tactics” that, ironically, will clearly outline how the PRO-VAX advocates go about their work!
Thank you ScienceUpFirst, for illustrating so beautifully which of your tactics we should be aware of!!
Back in the fall of 2021, I too, had been looking at rhetorical devices or sneaky persuasive tactics used all around us. In the next post, I will repost my old writing on the following:
AD HOMINEM; CHERRY PICKING; GATEKEEPER; LIMITED HANGOUT; MOVING THE GOAL POSTS; NAME IT TO TAME IT; PROCRUSTEAN SOLUTION; PSYOP/FALSE FLAG & STRAW MAN