Would it be possible to twist the majority's perceptions in a certain direction and thereby contribute to getting people to follow the desired central narrative - and if so; how could this be done...? What would it look like...?
The contents of this article:
1. Perception & Reality
2. Some challenges of the observer
2.1 Confirmation bias and subjectivity
3. Exploiting the observation process?
4. Hijacking the observation process?
4.1 (Sample): the Trusted News Initiative - a cartel of trustworthy news?
4.2 (Sample): The role of the state? - behavior modification - psychological operations
4.3 (Sample): State as advertiser
4.4 (Sample): The bias of social media and Internet platforms
4.5 (Concept): Medical gaslighting
4.6 (Sample): Changing concepts and definitions
4.7 (Sample): "Fact-checking"
4.8 (Sample): Exclusion and retraction of scientific publications
4.8.1 (Sample): Distortion & manipulation of scientific publications
4.9 (Sample): Manipulation by & skewed interpretation of statistics
4.10 (Sample): Changing the communication practices and withholding information
4.11 (Sample): Smearing and vilification
Afterword
Sources used
In this article, I use the term observation in its more casual, perhaps more philosophical, sense; I am not referring to its meaning as a scientific research method. Similarly, here I do not mean perception as a direct and simple sensation, but as a more complex process requiring thought and some learning.
PERCEPTION
– a belief or opinion, often held by many people and based on how things seem
Regarding the above conceptualizations of the term ’perception’, one key point is that they do not emphasize the verb ”to know” or the concept ”truth” – the explanations of the terms contain much more nuanced expressions. Between the lines, one unifying factor echoes: subjectivity. But while perceptions are subjective, they have an enormous impact on our concrete actions in reality – on what decisions we make, what plans we make, how we relate to things and people, etc. From all of these, we then develop the everyday reality in which we live and the consequences of which we eventually discover before us.
In itself, there is nothing miraculous about that – it sounds like life, doesn’t it? Most of us probably agree, that is how it is. I myself have become increasingly interested in the subject, especially in recent, rather historic, years. At the same time, I have also come to realize that the subject is certainly not a simple one. There are many complex aspects to it. The purpose of this article is to discuss some of those aspects, which are perhaps less obvious to some people. Personally, I have found much in them that can partly explain many things that now seem ”crazy” or that would have seemed ”impossible” in the past.
2. Some challenges related to observer and perception
”Although perception is a largely cognitive and psychological process, how we perceive the people and objects around us affects our communication. We respond differently to an object or person that we perceive favorably than we do to something we find unfavorable. But how do we filter through the mass amounts of incoming information, organize it, and make meaning from what makes it through our perceptual filters and into our social realities?”
Confirmation bias simply means that people tend to process information by looking only for information that confirms their own beliefs or by interpreting the information they find in a way that matches their desires. Personally, I see confirmation bias as part of the inherent challenges of the human mind – everyone is prone to it and everyone suffers from it at some level. The key, in my view, is awareness – it’s good to be aware of your own subjectivity. That way you are also able – not only to see it, but also to understand it in others. This awareness can be easily expressed, for example, in writing and in conversations, with various additions such as ”my opinion is…”, ”I see that…”, etc. Bringing that awareness to the fore expands and frees up space for genuine discussion, exchange and reciprocity.
However, contrary to what is often thought, the confirmation bias does not only concern the particular ”camp” of those who criticize and deviate from the ”central narratives” and present alternative views. It is a purely psychological phenomenon, irrespective of the worldview or school of thought one espouses. The confirmation bias affects experts and lay people alike. On the other hand, however, there is a relatively simple, if perhaps initially seemingly harsh, remedy to mitigate its effect: the more familiar you get with the perspectives and arguments against your own views, the better you will understand them, be able to identify with them and comprehend them – a broad perspective is the key. Of course, those who are better placed in this respect are those who, for example, are forced by circumstances to be exposed to information from a wider field – for one reason or another.
However, confirmation bias becomes a bigger problem when those in the role of official spokesperson or professional expert do not pay attention to their own bias. The situation is even worse if there are indications that the above-mentioned parties are engaging in outright propaganda. The covid-era has brought forth this kind of potential reality in a whole new way. There is one more point to be made about the concept of propaganda. It seems to be subject to the similar misconception that I mentioned with regard to the confirmation bias: I have noticed in several discussions that many people still understand propaganda as something that always comes from the ’opposing’ side.
3. Exploiting the observation process?
Of course, the idea of subjectivity in relation to perception and its possible exploitation is nothing new. It is a theme that can be encountered wherever and whenever people’s support (or opposition to something) is needed and where the aim is to influence public opinion. History is full of examples of state propaganda, especially in times of crisis. In the same way, the theme is also central in marketing psychology – for example, in advertising campaigns and with the trends that are set in motion. Why then is the influencing through perception sought out so keenly; why is it so effective?
Generally speaking, people do not (at least on a conscious level) want to feel manipulated. Most people want to feel free, independent and autonomous. We like to think that we draw conclusions based on the information we acquire as independent, adult actors. If no one is forcing us to make a decision, we may feel more comfortable ”owning” it and may be more inclined to stick with it. No wonder, then, that it is extremely advantageous for any entity seeking support if a person can be made to make a decision ’independently’ that benefits that entity in question. Can people really be influenced in that way? How exactly could that happen?
One option is to try to influence the information that people see in such a way as to persuade them to come to the desired conclusions. I personally see that this can be done by skewing the information in the desired direction, especially at those exact points from which people get their information. In the digital age, this might seem impossible because of the vast diversity of information sources, but on the other hand, I believe it is also perhaps even easier than ever before in history. This can be done both by emphasizing desirable information and by excluding and omitting undesirable information – this is particularly effective when the recipient of the information is unaware of these efforts. In many cases, the mere omission of information is sufficient to achieve the desired results. But what if such manipulation is extremely well planned and coordinated? This brings us to the real subject of the article.
4. Hijacking the perception?
For years I had been pondering the idea of ”perception hijacking” as a kind of hypothesis – especially when watching the news. Admittedly, the idea of hijacking an observation, experience, etc. is not necessarily new per se neither. More recently, however, the covid and the associated public ”debate” (or lack thereof) has brought the subject into the limelight with a whole new intensity. (The Finnish MKR group also published an excellent article on the propaganda of the covid-era – a topic which is essentially interwoven with the theme of this article.)
As a term, ”perception hijacking” may sound a bit strange or even polemic. Nevertheless, in the following, I will try to use the archived material I have collected during last two years to highlight various examples that can be seen as at least somewhat supporting the notion that some level of perception hijacking has taken place collectively.
Could a total hijacking of public’s perception be possible? We often think that because we are highly educated and have unprecedented access to information ourselves via the Internet, that it would be almost impossible to perpetrate any kind of large-scale fraud in the world – surely it would be detected… (and to note, even deeper question is – especially in relation to this article – if such thing was perpetuated and then detected, how well would we come to know about it?) But I digress… however, I can see that both education and abundance of knowledge have ended up being an Achilles’ heel as well. For example, in universities, when it comes to scientific writing, in addition to many instrumental useful things, we are also taught off the shelf what are good and reliable sources. At the same time, however, the entire non-academic world – that is, the vast majority of the world – regards academic experts as the ultimate guardians of truth – and as reliable sources. The danger of a certain kind of ’authority loop’ is obvious. This is where the other argument mentioned earlier comes in: the abundance and availability of information in the world. This is certainly one of the reasons why we are outsourcing the acquisition of information – and nowadays more and more even the processing of information. People just don’t have time for everything.
However, many of us most likely have noticed that the news is no longer content to just give us information; it is also busy telling us what we should think about that information. However, when the transmission of information takes a turn in that direction, then we are already talking about propaganda.
The attempt to influence public opinion is of course a normal part of the social debate, but who does it, for whose benefit and in what capacity, is of key importance. Any official media – especially if it is still publicly funded – should be a reliable source of information; it is its main purpose. It is precisely in the context of the media that propaganda becomes highly problematic. Ordinary good people who tend to focus mostly on the more mundane aspects of life, almost invariably use the official media as their primary source of information – especially here in Finland (which also has some of the least corruption, highest happiness and best education in whole world according to some international indicators… suicides and coffee drinking are in different stats though).
In the remainder of this article I will present various extracts from subjectively collected™️ material that have made me concerned about the direction where the media has been going and about the notions and state of following concepts: expertise, credibility, transparency, institutional priorities, etc. As I see it, following samples could paint a picture of the capture/ hijacking of perception on a global scale. Although examples here have been picked only in relation to the covid, the whole subject is of course wider in scope and notion of perception hijacking has wider applications.
4.1 (Sample): Trusted News Initiative – a cartel of trusted news?
When talking about a situation in which the various news media would take concrete action to influence public opinion, the ’Trusted News Initiative’ (TNI) must be mentioned. This is an initiative that had already grown from the summer of 2019, where major media and internet platforms, from the BBC to Google, came together to ”fight disinformation”. The aim of the consortium in relation to pandemic has been to provide comprehensive, consistent and centralized narrative. In practice, the aim was to ensure that the public is given a certain uniform impression about the subject.
A comprehensive and well-researched article on the subject can be found here; another here. While the idea of ”protecting the public” from disinformation may sound like a good one, it also has many problems. One of them is the question of who gets to be the one to define that ”disinformation”? If we think about a consortium of the major media outlets, we are already talking about a huge build up of influence. The topic was also a subject in a recent public debate between Elon Musk and BBC journalist James Clayton. The clip below sums up well the problem with the concept of a ”supreme guardian of truth”:
Full interview here and the BBC’s own view of the conversation in question here.
Finnish independent media ’Avoin media’ also addressed the question in its article ’WEF: Sensuuri tuo turvaa’ (WEF: Censorship brings security).
We have recently got some very illustrative evidence of this problem in the ’Twitter Files’ -publications. What happens when the goal of the purported ’truth watchdog’ is not the truth? If this has been the case with the covid, then the aftermath will be ugly and the consequences this time will be truly serious, capable of swinging fates of whole masses of people.
4.2 (Sample): The role of the state? – behavior modification – psychological operations
At this point, it is worth pointing out that the media is by no means the only body whose aim is to deliberately influence public opinion. Personally, I see the media as only the most effective tool in those efforts. A more ominous and sinister nuance of this influence comes forth with notions of the application of behavioral science and behavioral modification in relation to pandemic messaging. Implications of this kind of activity seem somehow to be a bit darker, when these kind of tools are harnessed by the state instead of commercial actors.
The issue has been a source of debate, particularly in the UK. Documents have revealed that the Prime Minister’s Office set up a ’behavioral insight team’ of civil servants, better known as the ’Nudge Unit’. The purpose of the team was to develop more or less subtle ways of ”nudging” people to make certain choices without actually forcing them. The central theme was, of course, people’s attitudes towards the government’s own covid-measures, particularly vaccines. This group has since been accused of deliberately intimidating the population, and its activities have also led to investigations. (There is also a non-UK article on the subject by the Russian RT – which, admittedly, is almost always on the attack especially towards the Brits, when the opportunity arises. (and again, although this is an article from RT; the general dismissal of any views critical of the central narrative as ”just Russian propaganda” has already outlived its expiry date [see mentioned Twitter Files]. To run with such an argument still today would be almost comical.)
The subject has not been hidden up here either. In Finland, the Government of Finland issued briefing in relation to topic in late autumn 2020, just before the vaccines arrived.
”As long as we don’t have a vaccine or medicine to treat the Covid-19 virus disease, the emphasis is on preventing infections. Since its success depends on people’s behavior, it is important to strengthen the state administration’s ability to understand the factors influencing behavior”, chairman of the project’s steering group, head of department describes the importance of the approach
In Britain, there was also a furor over revelations that the army’s psychological warfare unit, the 77th Brigade, was following high-profile politicians and journalists who were unnecessarily vocal in their criticism of the desired crown-centre narrative. Moreover, state sponsored covid-censorship has been evident in Britain. The website of Ofcom, the national communications regulator, even provides a list of the targets of censorship, the ’offences’ detected and the penalties imposed.
The Rockefeller Foundation, the National Science Foundation (an “independent” agency of the U.S. government) and other nonprofits are pouring millions of dollars into a research initiative “to increase uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and other recommended public health measures by countering mis- and disinformation.”
..
The funds will support 12 teams of researchers in 17 countries who will conduct studies on “ambitious, applied social and behavioral science to combat the growing global threat posed by low COVID-19 vaccination rates and public health mis- and disinformation,” the Rockefeller Foundation said.
– THE DEFENDER
Behavioral modification has indeed been the desired way of getting things done. The April 9th (2023) article ’CDC Partners With ’Social and Behavior Change’ Initiative to Silence Vaccine Hesitancy’ details how the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has partnered with the ’Shots Heard’ initiative. The article gives an excellent insight into how the partnership works in practice and what the implications are. The article also discusses lesser known aspects of the CDC’s own funding, including the ’CDC Foundation’. In relation to the initiative, the article states:
According to its website, Shots Heard is an initiative under The Public Good Projects (PGP), a “public health nonprofit specializing in large-scale media monitoring programs, social and behavior change interventions, and cross-sector initiatives.”
4.3 (Sample): State as advertiser?
In the United States however, government’s influence on information was not limited to censorship. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by ’The Blaze’ revealed that the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was paying various media outlets to report positively on issues such as coronary vaccines:
In response to a FOIA request filed by The Blaze, HHS revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations. These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.
– THE BLAZE
In this context, it should be noted though that according to the article, the US Department of Health and Human Services had the right under US law ”to work with other actors through evidence-based campaigning to raise awareness about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines…”. Congress had even appropriated $1 billion in funding for 2021 for this purpose. Whether legal or not, however, it is fair to ask to what extent this affects the public’s perception of reality. In summary, it is a simple example of using money to shape the quality of information in the desired direction. This is why we as a society have traditionally been… (or used to be?) concerned about the impact of various conflicts of interest on decision-making and thus on our lives – especially in areas that acutely deal with our immediate well-being.
Another essential detail, which is of great importance when looking at all the media propaganda originating in the United States today, is very likely the amendment to the law ’H.R.5736 – Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012’, which was passed under President Obama. It updates the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which had previously restricted the presentation of state propaganda, especially in the media. It seems this new amendment effectively removed the previous barrier for the media to be a mouthpiece of state propaganda.
4.4 (Sample): The bias on social media and Internet platforms
And what about social media? Social media platforms have played an important role in curating the information since the early days of the pandemic. Former investigator for US senate and now investigative journalist Paul Thacker, who has written for the British Medical Journal and others, explores the topic in his article ’NEW EMAILS: Biden White House Behind Facebook Censorship of The BMJ’s Pfizer Investigation’. He highlights through evidence how Facebook received direct covid-related censorship guidance directly from the White House. In the evidence Thacker presents, also echoes a theme that has emerged in the case of the the Twitter Files – the parties shaping the narrative were also prepared to censor truthful debate if it was believed to increase ’vaccine hesitancy’. Thacker describes for example, how Facebook promised the government that it would ”target” the British Medical Journal – an actual medical journal. In an email to White House officials, a Facebook employee wrote:
“As you know, in addition to removing vaccine misinformation, we have been focused on reducing virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation…”
And here we are at the very heart of the matter. I would say that here we have a clear knowingly conceived effort to capture collective perception in the spotlight: even truthful material is being censored in the name of a particular goal. And the fact that there is a whole range of quite enormous economic interests linked to this objective, does not make it any more trivial. In this case, the US Constitution prevents state censorship, so the government is trying to circumvent the law by using another actor. The pattern is repeated in many other cases. Independent journalist Sharyl Atkisson has also been writing about the subject and many writers in Substack, for example Igor Chudov.
The scandal has at this stage already reached the point where the government is in court to answer censorship charges. The defendants in the case are a diverse group of actors, including the attorneys general of two different states and censored doctors. Updates on the lawsuit are also reported by Californian professor Aaron Kheriaty. He is one of the plaintiffs in the case and an expert on bioethics. Kheriaty’s blog can be found here.
Organized censorship on social media platforms has also been a central theme in the ’Twitter Files’ -publications. In particular, this was highlighted in the recently published 19th installment, which discussed ’The Virality Project’ created at Stanford University. The guidelines for the project were already familiar at this stage: there was a desire for a consistent narrative and a willingness to censor even truthful content if it threatened that narrative. What was noteworthy about The Virality Project was its reach:
We’ve since learned the Virality Project in 2021 worked with government to launch a pan-industry monitoring plan for Covid-related content. At least six major Internet platforms were “onboarded” to the same JIRA ticketing system, daily sending millions of items for review.
….
Though the Virality Project reviewed content on a mass scale for Twitter, Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, Medium, TikTok, and Pinterest, it knowingly targeted true material and legitimate political opinion, while often being factually wrong itself.
Previously published Twitter Files articles also give a clear picture of how US government agencies such as the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were in contact with Twitter and pressured it to censor the content they wanted. Government action in the US has reached astonishing levels in other areas too. For example, ’The Pulse’ reported how those critical of the covid and the vaccine narrative were even sought to be labelled terrorists by the very same government agencies.
There seem to be different nuances visible in the demonization of vaccine critics, depending on where you are. More typical in Europe and Finland is the narrative that ”anti-vaxxers” people are ”pro-Russian”, ”Putin’s trolls” or ”supportive of Russian policies”. The mentioned Twitter Files also discuss precisely how behind the scenes there has been a clear attempt to use Russia-related accusations to smear critics. An example of this is ’Hamilton 68’ – a group created for propaganda purposes and which can be succinctly described as a ’neoliberal think tank’, to quote journalist Matt Taibbi.
”It was all so striking. On 24th of February (2022), it turned out that those who had had very strong views on the covid-vaccine were suddenly very strongly opposed to Zelensky.”
These words are from Jeanette Serritzlev, a military analyst at the Defence Academy. She works on information warfare on a daily basis.
Question:But could it also be that those who criticize both the vaccines and the narrative of the war in Ukraine have something other than Russia in common? For example, a concern about one-sided news coverage? For example, the perception of an entirely emotional and propagandistic behavior among ’experts’on issues where the real security and future of citizens is at stake? – Just asking…
This all shows how hard the various powers and authorities have worked to maintain a certain narrative through censorship and information control. These measures then have a direct impact on what kind of information eventually ends up being ’perceived’ by citizens and on the choices, decisions and views that these consumers of information then come to.
One of the most sneaky ways of influencing our thinking is gaslighting. Below is a summary of what is meant by the term:
Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth.
Gaslighting is, however, in a category of its own in terms of perception hijacking, as it seeks to directly influence how people interpret their own perceptions. During pandemic, ones who have suffered perhaps most painfully due this, are those who have suffered from vaccine related adverse reactions. One reason for this may be, that the same experts and authorities, who have been pushing vaccines, simply cannot afford themselves to be in a position where they now would be forced to acknowledge the dangers or problems with vaccines – a problem that becomes more significant the bigger the mistake made has been. Thus, any health problems arising from vaccines often have to be somehow blamed on the patient.
In modern times, this is accomplished by having medical providers all echo the same message that a patient’s injury has nothing to do with the pharmaceutical (or other medical procedure in question). Most commonly, it instead is argued that the symptoms they are experiencing are due to pre-existing psychiatric issues the patient has (e.g., anxiety), which are treated with medications that often create additional issues.
Here is a sample from the story of a victim of such gaslighting:
(Almost ironically for us Finns, on the upper left corner of the video, there is still an advertisement by the Finnish Institute of Health and Welfare [April 13th 2023] telling you they’ve got the latest information on covid..)
One blatant (but also one of the easiest to trace and demonstrate) way of influencing people’s perceptions has been the outright modification of concepts, for example in online dictionaries or on government websites. Definitions and terms have in some cases been changed and ’corrected’ in order to give more backing to the desired narrative and at the same time to stifle the loudest criticism. While to some this may seem transparently clumsy, it is highly effective. Especially people, who have still kept somewhat an open mind and are trying their best to form independent opinions, are vulnerable in these cases. Example: a person hears an assertion different from the central narrative that seems hard to believe. However, he wants to check it out for himself and then ends up on a platform where the definition has been corrected to support the central narrative. There are several examples of this.
For example, in autumn 2021, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed the definition of ”vaccine” because of concerns about the fit of new mRNA jabs with the previous definition. Suggestions that the covid vaccines did not prevent the spread of the virus must have been embarrassing to say the least, even though this was already known when the vaccines were launched. The term ”vaccinated” was also changed. This was probably because people were critical in the debate about the possible need for further covid vaccine boosters. This concern was revealed in internal emails. And once again this kind of information was only obtained through a Freedom of Information request. The CDC itself explained that it wanted to ”clarify the definition”, but in practice these corrections made the CDC’s own policy seem more justified. ”The reality” was thus corrected to better fit the narrative which was being pursued.
A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination:
The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination:
The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.
”a person who opposes the use of *some* or all vaccines, regulations mandating vaccination, or usually both” (emphasis mine):
So now, if someone who only opposed experimental, new technology-based covid injections (for which there still does not exist data on long-term safety, on effects on fertility, cancer, etc.) and thus denied being generally ”anti-vaccine” for examplein a social media debate, they could be countered by referring to the ”official dictionary”. Once again, the ”reality” changed to serve the desired narrative. One change on the Internet changed what many people perceived and therefore what their opinions and conclusions were shaped into.
However, in my opinion, even more worrying case than the examples above was the CDC’s ”correction” of the definitions, which related to the persistence of mRNA in the bodies of vaccinated and the time span involved. A brief summary of the case can be found here. The author of the article ’Naked Emperor’ hits the nail on the head by stating: ”The CDC’s ”facts” about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are slowly disappearing from the history books…”. Earlier, the CDC stated on its website that ”MRNA and spike protein does not persist in the body for long”. Under that paragraph, the agency further explained why this was the case. However, at some point in September 2022, the entire paragraph and the explanation were completely removed from the info diagram:
In addition, although not entirely related to definitions, the generally published data on the biodistribution (distribution and dissemination in the body) of the vaccine and mRNA had also been called into question much earlier, through the Japanese regulatory authorities’ investigations that became public in the summer of 2021. An edited summary of the issue here. More recent Australian data even suggests that the truth about biodistribution was widely known early on, but was kept under wraps (video below).
Fact-checking by ”fact-checkers” is a slightly more modern way of influencing perception at those intersections where people go to check and verify things (i.e. the Internet), compared to those methods described in the previous chapters. It was only really introduced for public during the ’Trump scare’, starting around 2016 and as a phenomenon it would deserve an article of its own. The topic has been widely covered and many who read the ’alternative’ content on covid have certainly come across it in some form. Fact-checking is probably the most well known aspect in relation to the perception hijacking, so I’ll only touch on it briefly. Here is also an interview with Emmy award-winning former mainstream media journalist Sharyl Atkisson on the topic in general (the video is behind a paywall, but the entire conversation should be transcribed on the page).
But the whole thing took on an almost comical tone when BMJ editors Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi felt that they were forced to write an open letter to Facebook. Below are the opening words of the letter:
“We are Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi, editors of The BMJ, one of the world’s oldest and most influential general medical journals. We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta.…”
And from the end of the letter:
”Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.
We hope you will act swiftly: specifically to correct the error relating to The BMJ’s article and to review the processes that led to the error; and generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.”
BEST WISHES, FIONA GODLEE, EDITOR IN CHIEF KAMRAN ABBASI, INCOMING EDITOR IN CHIEF THE BMJ
More detailed BMJ’s report on the whole affair is truly worth reading. While the case seems almost comical, it also shows on how shaky foundations the whole ”fact-checking” apparatus lies. In many cases, it is seemingly just a propaganda institution funded by vested interests. In relation to subject, another revealing and timely example – an email exchange between British professor and mathematician, Norman Fenton and a fact-checker, can be seen here.
The story reveals the same pattern as that earlier BMJ story – both Facebook and the external ’third-party’ fact-checker it utilizes are not keen to stand by their ’views’, but are passing the ball between each other and dodging responsibility. When it comes to fact-checking, it seems our perceptions are being hijacked by very flimsy and hollow means. The conservative publication Breitbart sums up the situation succinctly in its article ’Facebook Admits in Court That ’Fact Checks’ Are Just Opinion’:
Facebook, now calling itself “Meta,” asserts that Stossel needs to “attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to ’Meta’ because of the tech company’s outsourcing of censorship to third-party fact checkers, made up of liberal media organizations and nonprofits. Facebook uses this system to distance itself from responsibility from any fact-checks, by arguing that the decisions are made by third-parties rather than the company itself.
However, the company still acts on those decisions by affixing labels to posts that have been “fact checked” and suppressing their reach on the platform.
(For more about fact-checking, here is one more article, that digs into the background and working methods of the fact-checker ”Snopes”.)
4.8 (Sample): Exclusion and retraction of already published scientific papers
One example of the brazen and visible manipulation of public’s perception and scientific consensus (or its metaphor) has been the retraction of scientific papers and studies already published in peer-reviewed journals. The very idea of such a thing raises questions. The whole basis of the credibility of science is its transparency and ’integrity’. Facts should lead wherever they lead – regardless of other interests. Of course, most of us understand that we do not live in a completely ideal world in this respect, but nevertheless…
Avoided vaccination for reasons that include a preference for natural interventions, distrust of pharmaceutical interventions, distrust of government information, poor/limited trial study data, and fear of long-term adverse reactions.
Does not place a disproportionate burden on health systems. In reality, they have experienced low hospitalization rates and severe Covid-19 disease is rare.
Is more likely to self-care, using natural products like vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, and quercetin.
Used ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine in many cases.
Has experienced menstrual abnormalities (an adverse effect reported by vaccinated women) despite not taking the vaccine.
Has experienced a considerable mental health burden, possibly aggravated by their stigmatization by the mainstream, ‘vaccinated’ society.
Has experienced discrimination because of their decision to exercise the right to informed consent and refuse the administration of the experimental injection.
When then MSN, which is part of the mainstream media, first reported the study and that it showed that severe covid was rare in the unvaccinated and that fewer unvaccinated people were hospitalized compared to vaccinated people, the fix was in. The next day, ResearchGate pulled the paper from its platform; likewise, MSN removed its news article. Such a study was not what people should be seeing – once again, the perception of the public was to be kept in check. ResearchGate justified the ”cancellation” by citing terms of use. One of the authors of the paper, Robert Verkerk, responded to the platform:
“I have long respected the contribution ResearchGate makes to open and transparent discourse within the scientific community and I hope this doesn’t represent part of a general narrowing of your approach to openness in science. We have been invited to submit the findings to a peer-reviewed journal in a more consolidated form so will continue on this path.”
Another example is a study which found that the number of heart inflammations in children and adolescents had increased several-fold as a result of covid injections. Elsevier, the publisher of the study, withdrew the study from its platform after it had been being published for some time. The study was authored by Jessica Rose, PhD – a computational biologist, and Peter McCullough, a well-known widely published cardiologist. The study ’A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products’ is now available on Rose’s own website (*An updated version of the study was finally published in January 2024). What stunned me most in relation to this case is that the withdrawal was made just days before the FDA’s VRBPAC committee gave its approval for covid vaccines for the smaller children at the end of October 2021.
”Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12–15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group,” the paper said.
After two weeks, on Oct. 15, the paper disappeared from the publisher’s website, replaced by a notice of “Temporary Removal.” Not only weren’t the authors told why, they weren’t informed at all, according to Rose.
“It’s unprecedented in the eyes of all of my colleagues,” she said.
When they raised the issue with the publisher, they were first told that the article had been removed because it had not been ”invited”, Rose said. [Another of the authors] Peter McCullough dismissed this as irrelevant and threatened to sue for breach of contract. The publisher then invoked its terms of use, saying it had the right to refuse to publish any study for any reason.
It is still not clear why the study was withdrawn.
“I do apologize, but Elsevier cannot comment on this enquiry,” said Jonathan Davis, the publisher’s communications officer, in an email to The Epoch Times.
But what does all this tell us about the mechanisms and the state of ”official” and ”accepted” science? Of course, mistakes happen and studies have to be withdrawn and corrected, but as a layman, I myself would think that this should be done with clear and visible criteria that can be linked to the substance content. The whole idea of the peer-review/journal concept is ideally, however, to publish extremely well reviewed and thoroughly vetted material. As it is now, it seems the system provides an avenue for manipulation on a massive scale, especially at the points where people assume they can get the most reliable information.
4.8.1 (Sample): Misrepresentation & distortion of scientific publications
In the case of studies on covid and vaccines, there have been indications of outright misrepresentation of publications. An article by ’The Pulse’ discusses five different cases that illustrate a new trend: the conclusions at the end of the study do not match the data presented in the study. Why is this particularly problematic? The article writes:
Most readers, even most scientists, take in the executive summary of an article and do not wade through the technical details. But for careful readers of the article, there was a stark disconnect between the Cliff Notes and the novel, between the article’s succinct (and specious) conclusion and its detailed scientific content.
The above quote underlines why such errors (?) have a major impact on the perception of reality – especially/even among experts. Vinay Prasad, Professor of Virology and Biostatistics, also addresses the above problem in his blog. In the video clip below, the well-known American doctor Marty Makary also touches on the subject. In it, he discusses the post-editing practices of scientific articles:
On the other hand, many academics have pointed out that some of the studies supporting the central narrative are simply of inadequate quality. Vinay Prasad’s blog provides a case study of one such example. While each case must be assessed on its own merits, it is worrying especially for a layman to see certain types of studies being withdrawn without thorough explanation, if at the same time studies are kept published that show very clear errors or distortions. As a non-expert I should be able to trust the system.
Of course, some of these cases also involve pressure – both from funders and from the researchers’ own institutions. This problem has been explored, for example, in a publication titled ’Suppressing Scientific Discourse on Vaccines? Self-perceptions of researchers and practitioners’. As for perception and its manipulation – the authors of the previous study put the problem succinctly:
Suppression of dissent impairs scientific discourse and research practice while creating the false impression of scientific consensus.
It’s not difficult to reach a scientific consensus when you squelch dissenting voices.
The origin of COVID is a classic example. Twenty-seven scientists published a letter in The Lancet condemning “conspiracy theories” that suggested the virus did not have a natural origin. Dissenting views were censored on social media and labelled “misinformation.”
It’s only now, that the US Department of Energy and the FBI say the virus was likely the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, that it’s possible to have these discussions openly.
4.9 (Sample): Manipulation of statistics and their biased interpretation
Like scientific publications, official statistics are often used to justify opinions, policies and arguments. Thus, the potential problems associated with them also take on greater significance. The intricacies of statistics are also a kind of alchemy that ordinary citizens (and also students of other subjects) often lack the interest to delve into – which is also one reason why statistics may end up being a powerful tool for manipulation.
So what is the issue in that case? Shapiro writes that the definition of who is vaccinated and who is not, as used by Swedish health authorities and propagated by the mass media, has led to a situation where the vast majority of people with suspected vaccine adverse reactions are classified as ”unvaccinated”.
This is not only a medical-bureaucratic scandal, but also, to a large extent, a journalistic and societal scandal, writes journalist Per Shapiro.
The Swedish medical group ’Läkaruppropet’ (The Call for Doctors) also published an article on the scandal. The topic has also sparked some discussion here in Finland, but it has been mostly confined to social media. In the UK, similar affair was even found in a study. Researchers at Queen Mary University found that the categorization of vaccinated and unvaccinated had been systematically flawed. They addressed the problem in their study ’Official mortality data for England suggest systematic miscategorisation of vaccine status and uncertain effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination’ in January 2022, just a month before ’Nyadagbladet’ published the before mentioned article.
During covid-19, there have also been several cases of erroneous reporting related to statistics. For example, in March 2022, the US CDC quietly deleted 24% of the child death statistics related to covid-19. The agency said it made the correction after finding ”an error in the coding logic of the system”; previously, mortality figures had had to be corrected when ”inconsistencies in the data” had been found. At the time of these corrections, the vaccines had already been in circulation for a good while. Statistics, on the other hand, had played an important role, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic, in demonstrating the danger of the disease and thus in influencing public opinion in favor of vaccination – especially vaccination of children.
There were also errors in news reporting. The New York Times, in particular, has been busted on a couple of occasions. In autumn 2021, the paper incorrectly reported that the number of cases of children’s covid related hospitalizations was 900 000, counted from the start of the pandemic, when it was actually 63 000, counted from August 2020. The same article contained three factual errors in one paragraph, according to the ’Washington Examiner’. The Examiner provided some collegial flogging:
For those playing at home, there are three corrections jammed into this single paragraph. In any other profession, this would be grounds for suspension or termination. But the rules are apparently more relaxed in the world of corporate journalism, especially if you’re the winner of the Victor Cohn Award for Excellence In Medical Science Reporting.
In May 2022, the same newspaper (NY Times) again reported that thousands of children aged 5-11 years had died due certain covid-related syndrome. According to CDC data, the correct number at that time was 68. After a correction, the article said there was thousands of diagnoses, but there was no any mention of deaths, writes the Epoch Times.
4.10 (Sample): Changing information policies and concealing information
Another factor that has a significant impact on people’s perceptions is the information provided by the authorities. Sudden changes in information practices and the frequency of information in general have a major impact on people’s perception of what is happening in the world. Here are some examples.
Matt Taibbi also provides a concrete example of this most obviously prevailing mindset – the screenshot below is from his 19th Twitter Files installment. It is an excerpt from a bilateral email communication between Twitter and the ’Virality Project’- personnel concerning the different categories of content to be censored:
”The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public,” according to the Times, “because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.”
And indeed, The Federalist begins its own article by stating the essential core problem in the whole issue:
Selectively cherry-picking ‘The Science’ to suit a political narrative is not ‘Following the Science.’ It is malpractice and fraud.
We documented 25 instances when the CDC reported statistical or numerical errors. Twenty (80%) of these instances exaggerated the severity of the COVID-19 situation, 3 (12%) instances simultaneously exaggerated and downplayed the severity of the situation, one error was neutral, and one error exaggerated COVID-19 vaccine risks. The CDC was notified about the errors in 16 (64%) instances, and later corrected the errors, at least partially, in 13 (52%) instances.
The abusive aspect of ’data selection’ also caused some outrage in Israel, where leaked documents revealed that the state was withholding data on children suffering from covid vaccine related adverse events at the same time as it was actively pushing forward a campaign to vaccinate children.
The most recent example of a deliberate effort to suppress data came from the United States on 10th of April 2023, when Judicial Watch, a legal ’watchdog’, obtained due Freedom of Information request the email communications between British and US health officials just days before Pfizer’s vaccine was approved. The messages show that the authorities promised ”mutual confidentiality” in relation to the vaccines and anaphylaxis. Tom Fitton, director of the Judicial Watch that obtained the material stated:
“It again took a lawsuit for the Biden administration to hand over, albeit heavily redacted, information regarding the safety of the COVID vaccines that the public has every right to know,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This disturbing batch of new documents have uncovered a secret confidentiality agreement tied to COVID vaccine safety issues and emails that raise new questions about the vaccines and pregnancy.”
As a citizen I would say that the importance of communication from the authorities is paramount – even more than experts, public authorities are bound not only by their expertise but also by their larger responsibility. The question about responsibility will most likely be the subject of greater debate, especially in the future.
4.11 (Sample): Smearing & vilification
In terms of narrative management and manipulation of perception, one kind of tricky problem is posed by (formerly) respected experts or public figures with impeccable backgrounds, who now suddenly criticize the central narrative. The most common response to this has been to denigrate them; if the credibility of the person can be destroyed, there is no need to take so much issue with the substance of their claims – after all, the more truthful and well-founded the criticism they are presenting is, the harder it would to argue against them. There are so many examples, but here I present only some very well known.
It is not only people though, who have been victims of smearing. In the early stages of the pandemic, drugs that had shown promising results in treating early-stage covid were particularly targeted. The best known of these are probably hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The need to denigrate such drugs is in hindsight, of course, understandable in the context of the central narrative: in the United States in particular, the ”discovery” & repurposing of any efficient drug that was already known and approved would have removed the legal basis for the emergency marketing authorizations necessary for fast-tracking the deployment of covid-vaccines. These drugs therefore had to be made to appear ineffective or even dangerous. Even ”the science” was slanted as Tess Lawrie demonstrates so clearly in this video. Also Dr. Pierre Kory has written a series of articles about the whole topic starting with following article: ’The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin in COVID-19 (Part I)’.
Additionally, entire groups of people have also been subjected to denigration. In the context of covid-19, the most visible example has been the blame and criticism directed at the unvaccinated, although the justification of such blame has been questioned already very early on. Here is dr. Peter Doshi giving commentary on these questions in Washington, November 2021.
The key finding is that across 21 countries, the antipathy people felt against the unvaccinated is 2.5 times higher on average than it is against migrants from the Middle East. So basically, the unvaccinated are universally hated.
Looking at the news coverage over the last couple of years, these findings are not surprising to be honest. For its part, the research Guetzkow is talking about, describes how the subjects of the study saw the world. Exploring which and what kind of observations have led those people to such conclusions would tell us even more though. For me, such a striking result does suggest that objects of people’s perceptions have most likely been influenced.
Afterword
At this point, it is perhaps appropriate to point out that also this article is undoubtedly a purely subjective interpretation based on my own selection of data. This should be mentioned both as a healthy gesture of self-irony and also as a fact. The disclaimer also fits in with the theme of the article, I would say. However, I would propose that the material sampled here provides important additional nuances, if we consider the ”central-narrative” we hear in general. I want to balance the subjectivity of my writing with transparency, by including the links to the material that I have used to support my views in the text. This allows the reader to see what I have read and draw their own conclusions from that information too.
For me the strong message of this whole era has been that we cannot afford no longer to externalize our own thinking.
The author is a citizen journalist and father from Finland
(who also once was a student of
political science and journalism)
If you find this useful and think it could broaden someone’s understanding, I hope you consider sharing it!
*) The Backfire Effect: Why Facts Don’t Always Change Minds
In a perfectly rational world, people who encounter evidence that challenges their beliefs would first evaluate this evidence, and then adjust their beliefs accordingly. However, in reality this is seldom the case.
Instead, when people encounter evidence that should cause them to doubt their beliefs, they often reject this evidence, and strengthen their support for their original stance. This occurs due to a cognitive bias known as the backfire effect.
The backfire effect is important to understand, since it affects both your ability to change other people’s opinion, as well as your ability to process information rationally yourself. As such, in the following article you will learn more about the backfire effect, understand why and when it influences people, and see what you can do in order to mitigate its influence.
*) How the Media Led the Great Racial Awakening | Tablet Mag
”.. One possible way of explaining these statistics, is that America experienced an explosion of racism over the past decade and white liberals are uniquely reflective of that change. But another possibility, perhaps more likely, is that ascendant progressive notions about race reflected in a steady drumbeat of reporting and editorializing on the subject from leading national media outlets, encouraged white liberals to label a larger number of behaviors and people as racist. In other words, while the world may have stayed more or less the same, elite liberal media and its readership—especially its white liberal readership—underwent a profound change.”
*) RETRACTIONS ARE THE TIP OF THE CENSORSHIP ICEBERG | Ronald Kostoff
Retraction of a published paper from a journal is its removal from the journal. It is typically done after findings of malfeasance, such as fabrication of data, substantial plagiarism, etc. However, in the era of COVID-19, retractions have taken on a new (or perhaps previously hidden) politically-driven dimension. Papers of high technical quality have been retracted if they question the government-industry approach to the treatment of COVID-19, and especially adverse effects resulting from the COVID-19 “vaccines”.
The Website Retraction Watch has been tracking retracted COVID-19 papers, and has identified 325 as of this writing (early May 2023). COVID-19 paper retractions have been addressed in substack articles, journal articles, and many other forums.
*) Filters in the Age of Information Overload - and how they shape the practice of medicine | Midwestern Doctor
“The major challenge we all run into when we see a large pool of information is being present to it and knowing how to filter for its key points. Because there is no formal training or guidance for this, people typically focus on what their reticular activating system is already primed to spot in a sea of information and whatever elicits a strong emotional trigger for them (hence why much of the internet is inane clickbait). Neither of these is very helpful if one's goal is to determine what is actually true. Instead, they frequently lead one to simply pick out (and often selectively interpret) the "facts" (which may be incorrect) from the broad sea of information that conform to their pre-existing biases.”
*) NIH Scientist Testifies Government Ignored Importance of Natural Immunity—Let Us Now Commence, Once Again, the Great Misremembering - Unfortunately, for many online experts, the internet never forgets.|
Before we discuss the Lancet systematic review of 65 studies that found natural immunity is equivalent or greater than two doses of COVID vaccine, let’s review tweets promoting the message that there was no evidence of lasting protection from COVID infection by some very online experts and the scicomm writers who run in their herd.
*) CHD Sues Major Media Organizations Alleging Free Speech and Antitrust Violations
A U.S. district judge in Louisiana who was already presiding over three key free speech cases will now also preside over a lawsuit brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) against several of the world’s largest news organizations.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, alleges members of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) violated antitrust laws and the U.S. Constitution when they collectively colluded with tech giants to censor online news.
TNI is a self-described “industry partnership” launched in March 2020 by several of the world’s largest news organizations, including the BBC, The Associated Press (AP), Reuters and The Washington Post — all of which are named as defendants in the lawsuit.
The case is now before U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty.
Jed Rubenfeld, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Defender:
“When social media companies collude with government to censor critics of government policy, that violates the First Amendment.
“When they collude with major mainstream news organizations to censor rival online news publishers, that violates antitrust law.
“As the Supreme Court said in an antitrust case almost 80 years ago, ‘the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public. … Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not.'”
*) Exclusive: Ministers had ‘chilling’ secret unit to curb lockdown dissent – Critics of Covid restrictions targeted by counter-disinformation team at the heart of the Government
A secretive government unit worked with social media companies in an attempt to curtail discussion of controversial lockdown policies during the pandemic, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Counter-Disinformation Unit (CDU) was set up by ministers to tackle supposed domestic “threats”, and was used to target those critical of lockdown and questioning the mass vaccination of children.
*) Let’s See How COVID-19 ’Vaccine’ Papers Can Be Misleading – Don’t Use Bad Science To Push More RNA Shots | Dr. Byram Bridle
A colleague and friend asked me what I thought of a recent publication. For the benefit of others, I will provide a critique of it here. Why is this important?
Because it shows people how to differentiate the experts they should be listening to from those who stand on a foundation of fatally flawed science.
The Paper
The paper is entitled “Repetitive mRNA vaccination is required to improve the quality of broad-spectrum anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the absence of CXCL13”, and it can be found here (Da Silva, et al., 2023). .. ->
*) Reporter who wrote in NYT that 900,000 children had been hospitalized with COVID when the real number was 63,000—and that 4,000 had died from MISC-C when the real number was 68—tells Harvard governments should be more active in policing “misinformation.”
*) Five questions for the government’s behavioural scientists – Simple questions, requiring simple answers
HART believes that the general public has a right to be informed about the nature, scale, and intensity of state-sponsored nudging, not least so that they can be furnished with the opportunity to express their opinions about the appropriateness and acceptability of this form of top-down persuasion. Yet, to date, there has been a stark reluctance for any of the behavioural scientists within the government infrastructure to admit responsibility for promoting the fear-inflating messaging witnessed throughout the covid event. Given this lack of transparency in regard to the details of the ongoing behavioural science operation, HART would like to ask the state-employed nudgers the following questions ..
*) LC Helps Professor [Mark Skidmore] Clear Ethics Probe in COVID Shot Study
EAST LANSING, MI – Liberty Counsel recently helped exonerate a Michigan State University professor after he received allegations that he had used “unethical practices” during a published COVID-19 shot study. The study highlighted a correlation between the COVID shot and nearly 300,000 nationwide fatalities. The peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases originally published the study in January 2023, but later retracted it amid the allegations. Despite the study’s retraction, it remains in the top one percent of shared research around the world.
*) Transparency and Financials Conflicts of Interest in Science and Medicine – A history of influence, scandal, and denial
To position themselves as more science than the science itself, corporations hire academics as advisors or speakers, appoint them to boards, fund university research, support vanity journals, and provide academic scholars with ghostwritten manuscripts to which they can add their names and publish in peer-reviewed journals with sometimes little or no effort. These tactics create an alternative scientific realm that drowns out the voices of independent researchers and calls into question the soundness of impartial data.
*) Ministers accused of a cover up as it is revealed shadowy army unit DID spy on British critics of Covid lockdown policies – Release of new documents contradict official assertions that Army unit had only been monitoring foreign powers
The release of new documents contradict official assertions that a shadowy Army unit had only been monitoring foreign powers.
The Mail on Sunday revealed earlier this year that military operatives in the UK’s ’information warfare’ brigade were part of a sinister scheme to keep a close eye on politicians and high-profile journalists who raised doubts about the pandemic response.
They compiled dossiers on public figures – such as ex-Minister David Davis, who questioned the modelling behind alarming death toll predictions, and The Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens – and reported their dissenting views back to No 10.
Documents obtained by the civil liberties group Big Brother Watch revealed the Government cells included the MoD’s 77th Brigade, which deploys ’non-lethal engagement and legitimate non-military levers as a means to adapt behaviours of adversaries’.
*) #hijacking_of_perception | #inflation_of_the_science | BREAKING–Springer Nature Cureus Journal of Medical Science Violates Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines
To: Springer Nature Research Integrity Support
From: M. Nathaniel Mead, BA, BSc, MSc, and Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Subject: RIG-12669 / Concerns regarding our recent article in Cureus
Date: February 22, 2024
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing in response to the threatened retraction and eight false claims made by Tim Kerjses and Springer Nature regarding our highly rated, heavily viewed and downloaded comprehensive review paper, “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign,” published on 24 January 2024 in the journal Cureus. Mr. Kerjses currently serves as Head of Research Integrity, Resolutions for Springer Nature Research Integrity Group.
The statements made by Kerjses are false, misleading, and unsupported by evidence. Several claims were also arbitrary and capricious. Most of the statements appear to be adapted, either directly or indirectly, from the numerous comments made by the well-known vaccine industry social media trolls, Jonathan Laxton and Matthew Dopler, comments that were inserted almost daily in the Cureus portal following our paper’s publication. Their sole purpose was to deliberately denigrate coauthors of the “Lessons Learned” paper while misleading, confusing, mocking and otherwise upsetting others participating in the Cureus post-publication forum online.
*) #hijacking_of_perception | Why did behavioural scientists crave mask mandates? – The COVID pandemic exposed the nastiness of nudging
There is widespread recognition that the UK Covid-19 Inquiry will be the most expensive pantomime of all time. With a focus on the juvenile bickering of a few high-profile actors, and a failure to evaluate the legitimacy of imposing non-evidenced, and pervasively harmful, “pandemic” restrictions on the populace, it is shaping up to be forever known as a multi-million-pound whitewash to protect the dominant lockdown-and-jab Covid narrative. Nonetheless, if one has the time — and sufficient masochistic inclination — to sift through the details of the transcripts and witness statements of those presenting evidence to the Inquiry, new discoveries can be made regarding the individuals primarily responsible for the craziness seen throughout the Covid event. One such discovery is this: Professor David Halpern (the leader of the Behavioural Insight Team (BIT) — aka the “Nudge Unit” — energetically lobbied senior scientists and politicians to impose community masking upon British citizens in the early summer of 2020.
.. Halpern went on to explain that this subliminal prod was used to point out that “a normal thing for a world leader to do right now is wear a mask”. Also, his proclivity for masks apparently enables him to condone the intimidation of the non-compliant minority; in a more recent interview for the Telegraph’s “Lockdown Files” (Episode 4: 13 mins, 30 seconds), he is quoted as saying, “Behaviour is contagious … I remember seeing some people nearly coming to blows on a train because everyone else was wearing masks and this person wasn’t. You might not be comfortable with that but it is social pressure in action.”
