Tim Tripp
Visiting Wonderland
The government have established The Disinformation Project to produce high-quality research into the seed and spread of misinformation and disinformation in New Zealand. It was brought together by Te Punaha Matatini, a Centre of Research Excellence, hosted by the University of Auckland.
In a speech at the International Science Festival (14 July 2022), Disinformation Project Director Kate Hannah talked about the project’s insight into the ways in which the compelling nature of some of the most popular disinformation narratives presents critical challenges for New Zealand.
There was a particular focus on the Wellington Protest and it was argued that a healthier society will be achieved by fostering social cohesion and inclusion. It seems the Disinformation Project desire a consensus… a world in which everyone agrees. The vaccine is safe and effective, lockdowns have saved a considerable number of lives, and now wearing masks are the best tools at our disposal to get us out of the Pandemic.
But there are a few problems with agreeing to this consensus…
The Problem with the Dialogue
The Wellington protestors, fringe academics, rogue doctors and the so-called anti-vaxxers don’t share this consensus. Apparently, they are influenced by far-right conservative views, are misogynists, and radical racists…
However, a disproportionate number of the protestors were Maori and Pacific Islanders, the majority were women, and almost half supported Labour in the last election. There were doctors, teachers, lawyers, and nurses. There were people of all trades and professions. Rich and poor… they were New Zealanders. Many were double jabbed, some had even been boosted.
Yes, Trump flags and tin foil hats were present… however these were protesters who were mocking the media. It seems some still have a traditional Kiwi sense of humour. The MSM would have found this out if they actually went and talked to them.
Kate Hannah talked about community wellbeing, and quoted from the “The Report of the Royal Commission into the Christchurch mosque attacks”.
“Public conversations about embracing diversity and encouraging social cohesion should be led by political leaders and the government. There should be transparent conversations where information is available to everyone. These conversations need to include all communities – across the length and breadth of the country, both rural and urban. Enduring change will take time and investment, so these conversations will need to be ongoing.”
The Wellington protest took place because of the government’s divisive leadership, which is the complete antithesis of this statement.
The government are not embracing diversity, they are not encouraging social cohesion, they are not transparent, information is not available to everyone, and conversations don’t include all communities.
The current government seems to lack the ability to engage in dialogue, not only to attempt to find out who their opponents are, but what they actually believe.
Did it ever occur to those in parliament and to journalists, that those who oppose Covid policy, are not influenced by imported ideologies, but oppose these policies just because they believe our politicians and public health officials didn’t have the evidence to support them?
Imagine for a moment a scenario in which a wife confronts her husband after she discovers extravagant spending on their credit card statement. Hoping to have a discussion on what purchases should be a priority, her husband refuses to talk to her. Instead, he proceeds to squirt her with a hose while playing excessively loud music and calling her a river of filth. I don’t know, but I’m guessing that this hypothetical relationship would not end well.
Is it possible that the hostility directed at members of parliament is the result of frustration from a very large group of people that are united by a concern of rapid changes in society? Changes in which they have no say, and that they are not being included. Government refuses to engage in dialogue, and the protesters feel like they are being psychologically and emotional manipulated by a political party that has established unchallenged overreach, that is destroying community.
There was a complete failure from the opposition parties and the fourth estate in holding a majority government to account.
Is the belief in the far-reaching influence of QAnon, Right Wing extremists, and Supremacist groups, akin to a belief that there are monsters under the bed? Can the belief that there are conspiracy theories – actually be a conspiracy theory?
The term “misinformation” is now a term to describe what used to be called “disagreement”.
The Problem with the Debate
When the government are looking at policies to be mandated to everyone. EVERYONE has a right to contribute to the debate and EVERYONE has a right to be heard. Whether a policy is effective or not depends on who you are, your situation, and your political, religious, and philosophical beliefs. It’s not just about ‘following the science”.
Seat belts can save lives, but we can save more if we banned private motor vehicles altogether, but that wouldn’t be accepted by the vast majority of the population. In regards to Covid, the Government only had one Target – eliminating cases. The debate is not necessarily over the efficacy of the science in question – but what are the goals, and what are the trade-offs.
The Epidemiologist will argue lockdowns work, because they prevent Covid infections. That maybe true, but an Economist will say that the cost to the economy is too high and the long term economic devastation, and poverty that would incur, will be more damaging. A Statistician can submit data demonstrating that while lockdowns may prevent infections, they won’t prevent deaths. Increased mortality was significantly associated with higher obesity prevalence – not government policies.
The Mental Health expert will be concerned with rising Alcohol use and drug addiction, social isolation, domestic violence, and suicidal ideation. While the Cancer and Cardiovascular specialists will argue any benefit of lockdowns will be negated by the cancellation of routine medical procedures.
The same Epidemiologist may say they have the studies to show that an N95 mask reduces transmission. But the specialist in Occupation Hazards will argue that masks for the general population aren’t a practical solution, they need to be fitted properly, and people, especially children, are unlikely to to adhere to correct masking protocols.
A Psychologist will argue that there could be serious developmental and psychological damage to children if they are forced to wear a mask all day. Seeing facial expressions, especially smiles, even from strangers, is an important social engagement for the maintenance of emotional health. A dentist might claim long-term mask use is causing ‘Mask Mouth’, which describes a variety of oral side effects from wearing a mask for an extended time. This will result in negative health issues.
The Political Ecologist will point to the 3 million masks being tossed out every minute into landfills, waterways and oceans, and claim that this is an environmental disaster. A Surgeon might acknowledge he just wears a mask so his patients ‘feel’ safe. And the cynical Nurse might say, that despite the research nothing seems to work – the hospital is the most likely place to catch Covid and that’s the one place masks are most strictly enforced.
A Doctor may express concern about government policies. Everyone is different and treating everyone the same is not good medical practice. A doctor’s first concern is to take care of their patient and to do so with respect, honesty and professionalism. This practice has been undermined by vaccine mandates, which has provoked a backlash, resistance and polarisation, creating considerable damage to the reputation of the medical profession.
The expert in Natural Heath, will show the data of over 3000 daily admissions to hospital. Less than 3% are patients with Covid, while the majority are due to conditions related to poor lifestyle choices and an aging population. They would argue that someone’s vaccination status and whether or not they wear a mask, is not the cause of our health system crisis.
The Philosopher will challenge the premise “for the greater good” as an ethical and moral concept that creates serious problems for society. There is no way to quantify what the greater good actually is, or what is best for everyone. The ‘greater good’ argument also implies that it’s acceptable to sacrifice the minority to save the majority. This is a theme prevalent in tyrannical societies and why the term appears frequently in George Orwell’s 1984. The Philosopher may also warn us that as we eliminate more and more risks, the risks that remain will be perceived as more dangerous. This obsession with removing threats is making people more anxious, more fragile, and prone to seeing themselves as victims and demonizing anyone who disagrees with them.
Safetyism, the cult of safety, is destroying the human spirit.
The Problem With Consensus
If the goal is social cohesion, a consensus needs to be established on what is true. It’s no point in having consensus on policies that fail to deliver. This will result in eroding trust in government, and public health. However, because of the government’s refusal to listen to advice from a broader field of academics, it has become impossible to establish any meaningful consensus. There are a number of problems with the purported consensus coming from government officials and the mainstream media…
The Consensus is Political
I’m sure that there is a lot of good science being done regarding Covid. But much of the science has been politicized. The views relating to the vaccine and masks are now associated with someone’s political beliefs, which makes analyzing interpretations of data extremely difficult. Researchers always declare their conflicts of interest when publishing a paper, should they now declare who they vote for?
The Consensus is a Hive Mind
Especially in Medicine. There are rewards for maintaining the consensus – like ensuring funding, and improved career pathways. There are serious consequences for dissenting – loss of their medical license, ridicule and damage to reputation. There is very little incentive for a Doctor to question the use of the vaccine for their patients, even if they believe that to be true. It is not hundreds of thousands of Healthcare Professionals who agree, it is hundreds of thousands of Healthcare Professionals who follow the protocols. Most Medical professionals don’t have time to research and rely on guidelines formulated by a few.
The Consensus is Censored
I have listened to scientists discuss their frustration in dealing with Journals that rely on industry for funding. They have had their papers rejected (even after peer review), for the only reason that the conclusions weren’t satisfactory. Researchers are being stonewalled, and Public Health is ignoring warnings from academics who have specialized validated data. Consensus has considerable power to hide problems and has the potential to create group think and echo chambers.
Because of the psychological effects at play, consensus usually prevents opposition, sometimes forcing bad outcomes to spiral out of control. The daycare abuse hysteria of the 1980’s. The share market frenzy in 1987. The leaky home debacle in New Zealand during the 1990’s.
The slogan it is ‘safe and effective’, reminds me of the slogan “This economy is on a solid foundation” just prior to the subprime mortgage collapse in 2008. MSM refuse to publish opinions or research from those critical of Covid policies.
A Devils Advocate should always be allowed, even encouraged – even if they are wrong.
The Consensus is driven by Fear
The FDA approved vaccination for 5-11-year-olds, despite the advisory panel declaring there wasn’t sufficient safety data. The 5-11 EUA for the Booster was approved without the advisory panel. This isn’t how the approval process is supposed to work. Some argue it might be because of pressure from Pfizer so they can sell more vaccines. Or it could be political pressure, because of a significant percentage of the voting population who are terrified that perfectly healthy children, that have already had Covid, are going to die if they don’t get a booster. The scientific community don’t have the capacity to function properly in an environment of paranoia.
The Consensus is Corrupt
It’s not a conspiracy theory to say the industrial medical complex is corrupt. There has been growing concern from many in the scientific community about the conflicts of interest between Pharmaceutical companies, the regulatory bodies, and the commercialization of academia. Despite paying billions in fines for lying to consumers and putting out misleading marketing, not a single pharmaceutical company has been banned from social media. Not even Purdue Pharma, the company now in bankruptcy for having started the opioid epidemic. It’s easy to game the system, especially for corporations that have vast financial resources at their disposal. Any analysis Pfizer releases, especially when they refuse to make available the supporting data, needs to be read with a great deal of scepticism.
Big Pharma, along with Politicians, were the least trusted of all industries prior to 2020. They are the least qualified to be telling us what truth is.
The Consensus is driven by Hope
The rallying cry during lockdown was “Delay the spread until we have a vaccine”. Was too much hope placed on a vaccine, well before it was even available? I wonder how much influence wishful thinking has played out in policy making and the interpretation of data?
The Consensus is Not Equitable
Most people I see arguing for the benefits of the current measures don’t seem to be in the demographics that suffer the consequences of these actions. It’s easy to make policy about mask mandates when you don’t have to wear one all day. Or champion the benefits of a lockdown when you aren’t at risk of losing your home or livelihood. Or demand that everyone get vaccinated when you aren’t in a demographic that has increased risks of injury. The collateral damage from mandates, and lockdowns has been considerable.
The poor have borne the brunt of these measures, while the wealthy, the laptop class, and gatekeepers of information have done exceeding well. Is this a coincidence?
The Consensus is Exclusive
All science has overlapping fields – especially human health (of which there is still so much we don’t know). The Epidemiologists and Medical Professionals who promote the current policies, dominate the Covid debate. They are the only scientists allowed on the stage. They claim the vaccine is safe and effective, and the best thing you can do to protect yourself and others is to get vaccinated and wear a mask. Academics in other fields of science might argue that’s misinformation.
The Endocrinologist would show a considerable amount of published research showing that the majority of the population is deficient in Vitamin D and there is convincing evidence that this immunomodulator could theoretically reduce the fatality rate of Covid to zero.
A Gastroenterologist can demonstrate evidence showing the bacterial diversity of the Microbiome not only prevents severe outcomes of Covid, but even stops the infection. Also not eating highly refined processed foods, avoiding alcohol, not over prescribing medication, (especially antibiotics), and eating more fermented food, would not only end the pandemic but could cure patients with Long Covid.
The expert in Functional Health will describe how those that lead sedentary lifestyles, who are obese, have hypertension, and DMII, are at a significant risk from Covid. Just exercising 25 minutes a day will greatly reduce the risk of ending up in hospital. Can the question be posed… is Covid-19 a lifestyle disease?
But none of these fields of science has the funding or influence of those backed by the Pharmaceutical industry. If they ever claimed any of these measures were more effective than the vaccine, they would be shut down, or ignored – they never had a voice.
The Covid advisors to Government were too few, with a range of expertise far too narrow. This is why I think this Disinformation Project will be just another politically curated money pit, with handpicked experts, that has the sole purpose of gaslighting those who don’t agree with them.
The answer to what is misinformation and what is truth won’t come about because of a government-appointed committee telling us what to think. The Truth will only be determined if we are allowed open and robust debate.
In Kate’s “Eroded information ecologies” speech, she finished with the following …
“But what is at stake is community, connectedness, tolerance, and democracy.”
On this, I couldn’t agree more.
References
Eroded information ecologies: Social cohesion, trust, and the impact of misinformation. Kate Hannah, Director, The Disinformation Project
7 Stages of Gaslighting in a Relationship
How gaslighters emotionally manipulate, traumatize, and exploit victims.…
Vitamin D
Over 200 Scientists & Doctors Call For Increased Vitamin D Use To Combat COVID-1
SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates associated with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels
The Benefits of Exercise
The Microbiome
Is diet partly responsible for differences in COVID-19 death rates between and within countries?
Extensive impact of non-antibiotic drugs on human gut bacteria
The Dangers of Sateyism
Bureaucracies are using lockdown as an excuse to choke the human spirit
Masks
The protective effect of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Scottish healthcare workers.
HCWs were three times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than the general population.
Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery
20% of responding surgeons wore the mask for the sole purpose of respecting tradition.
Surgical masks as source of bacterial contamination during operative procedures
The Damage of Masking Children Could be Irreparable
Effect of Wearing Face Masks on the Carbon Dioxide Concentration in the Breathing Zone
The Collateral Damage from Lockdowns
The Great Barrington Declaration
As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes.
Mortality rates were associated with countries that had high obesity rates, not lockdowns or widespread testing.
The Problems with the Industrial Medical Complex
Sickening: How Big Pharma Broke American Health Care and How We Can Repair It
Dr John Abramson
ISBN 9781328957818
The illusion of evidence based medicine
Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia.
The Problems of Academic Censorship
Facebook versus the BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong
The BMJ has locked horns with Facebook and the gatekeepers of international fact checking after one of its investigations was wrongly labelled with “missing context” and censored on the world’s largest social network.
Censored: Australian scientists say suppression of environment research is getting worse
Survey finds that many researchers are banned from speaking about their work or have had their research altered to downplay risks.
Vaccine Injuries and the concept of the ‘greater good’
UK Now Reports Myocarditis stratified by Age & Sex After Vaccine Or Sars-cov-2.
Vaccines can have risks of myocarditis EXCEEDING risks of myocarditis from infection. Vinay Prasad, Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at University of California, San Francisco.
Covid-19: UK makes first payments to compensate injury or death from vaccines.
Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials
The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses.
