Insights into how to promote dangerous pseudoscience

[hoodathunkit]

I discovered an excellent documentary exposing the strategies of antivaccination activists and entrepreneurs.

There are many issues described that are worthy of consideration and comparison to the spread if misinformation and pseudoscience in relation to the trans issue IMO

Just one of the issues is the use / misuse of "indentifiable / identified victim bias" which I think has significant relevance to the issue of self ID and women's toilets, funding for dubious TRA organsiations and the use of vulnerable people as mascots for the purposes of fundraising and deflecting criticism

I would be interested in the thoughts of others

Anti-vaxxers exposed: Hidden camera investigation (Marketplace)

There are also fascinating links between the promotion of anti-vaccination movements, the transgender self-ID movement and fake news about VIP paedophile rings and satanic ritual abuse which I can post later if anyone is interested

I think there's lots of anti science in a range of areas that is very concerning.
People who choose to go their own way with alternative treatments for cancer for instance.
I have had dealings with a woman who has had post menopausal bleeding for EIGHT years. She is stunned to find she has advanced cervical cancer and all her healthy living and other remedies have failed to protect her.
A colleague reminisced about giving coffee enemas (!!!) (in an NHS hospital) to a young woman in her 30s who was dying of cancer and still believed her coffee enemas could help so the staff went along with it to be kind to her.

Then we have the woman, Maisie Hill who is not only presenting a "Science" event about periods whilst talking about humans with uteruses. I am even more outraged about her instagram post about checking for breast cancer where she refers to checking one's chest or pecs. FFS. How can anyone talk about breast cancer and in the same sentence refer to random body parts which will never be the site of breast cancer. (With the exception of local invasion to the chest wall/musculature in which case it will be very advanced and obviously not what she is talking about).

What are the incentives for the anti-vaxx movement? I mean I can understand that you believe that anti-vaxxers are misguided, but this further implies that anti-vaxxers are being deliberately manipulated. Who would benefit from that?

We do know that the greatest beneficiaries of the transgender movement are the pharmaceutical companies.

I think it's really important to note that anti-science is at least in part fuelled by bad science, or inappropriate deference to, or use of science.

The fact is that anyone can point to very severe scientific failures, systemic ones, and there are limits to science and what it can tell us. Science also does not have moral values and can't tell us what is right.

It's no longer possible to hide this from regular people, and if you try and fudge it and ignore it, you will lose their trust altogether.

Well said Goosefoot

What are the incentives for the anti-vaxx movement? I mean I can understand that you believe that anti-vaxxers are misguided, but this further implies that anti-vaxxers are being deliberately manipulated. Who would benefit from that?

1. The anti-vaxx movement is big business. The video in my OP shows this very clearly. A small number of people are making millions of dollars out of promoting dangerous pseudoscience

1. Data harvesting. The people who promote anti-vaccination conspiracy theories are typically involved with events and conferences (mostly but not exclusively new age) promoting a range of scams, everything from fad diets, cancer cures, anti-ageing products, astrology websites, free energy machines, quack medicinal products, crystal skulls, bitcoin scams, dubious models of psychotherapy, yoga cults, retreats to sacred places of ancient wisdom, MLM scams, 9/11 / 7/7 Truthers, jade eggs, yoni massage, yoni steaming, fake shamanism, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, indigo children, LGATs, angel healing, body psychotherapy, parts psychotherapy, herbal viagra, "healer plants", tarot readings, etc. etc.

Data harvesting can be helpful for dubious actors inasmuch as anyone registering for newsletters or buying products from the associated websites will effectively be on a "sucker list” as anti-vaxxers are more likely to belong to demographics that can be scammed with new age grifts than pro-vaxxers.

Data haresting is also the name of the game in relation to social engineering, the "manipulation of consent" which can be used to target advertising and also to shape election campaigns and influence elections. Data has a value of its own and do not imagine that ruthless snake oil merchants are above selling data to criminals.

1. Divide and Conquer. This is something we would all do well to pay attention to IMO. Under D&Q a hostile power uses influence rather than kenetic force to wage a war by weakening bonds and alliances and causing strife and discord. Strategies include, for example; giving power and privileges to certain minorities so as to cause strife and unrest, infiltrating good causes and pushing them to extremes that are amoral thus generating grievances and a backlash from other groups. This is worthy of very serious examination. Everyone in a nation or alliance uniting to create herd immunity against disease via vaccines is a problem for enemy forces. The narratives re pro and anti vaccination are very heated and divisive. People feel under threat and disrespected on all sides.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

1. Weaponising of disease. Disease and biological agents have a long and horrible history as weapons of war. Dropping containers of plague infested fleas on enemy populations is one way of doing it. Another method, based on influence rather than kinetic methods, is to spread conspiracy theories about vaccinations. This last option is very provisional, not because it would never happen but because, rather like the risk the alien escaping from the Nostromo, there is a significant risk of the snake biting its own tail if an epidemic becomes a pandemic.

I think it's really important to note that anti-science is at least in part fuelled by bad science, or inappropriate deference to, or use of science.

I am interested in what you mean by "or inappropriate deference to, or use of science". Do you mean "or inappropriate deference to, or use of bad science"?

The fact is that anyone can point to very severe scientific failures, systemic ones, and there are limits to science and what it can tell us. Science also does not have moral values and can't tell us what is right.

I agree that science does not have a moral value. It is however, when done properly, the best thing we have for reality testing, at last as far as I know. I would be interested to hear more about your views re the limitations of science and its failures

It's no longer possible to hide this from regular people, and if you try and fudge it and ignore it, you will lose their trust altogether.

Not sure I understand

I have had dealings with a woman who has had post menopausal bleeding for EIGHT years. She is stunned to find she has advanced cervical cancer and all her healthy living and other remedies have failed to protect her.

I am so sorry to hear that

I know someone who had a stroke recently as she stopped taking her meds on the advice of a quack who told her that her beta blockers were damaging her liver.

She won't hear a word against him, much to the distress of her friends and family.

I had not heard of Maisie Hill so thanks for sharing will check her out

hoodathunkit

Maisie Hill is presenting an event about periods at the Edinburgh science festival for "humans with uteruses".
The Instagram link from her Twitter talked about chest and pecs in relation to checking for breast cancer.
It's beyond ridiculous as she is talking about breast cancer , ergo it is the breast that needs checking.

Plus I think we all have a chest. Or where are our lungs?

I am interested in what you mean by "or inappropriate deference to, or use of science". Do you mean "or inappropriate deference to, or use of bad science"?

No, essentially I mean what is sometimes called scientism, or people who do not realise that scientific facts often don't really tell us what to think about things, or who do not realise that what science gives us a models that are representations, or don't realise that science is dependent on deeper philosophical principles and doesn't stand on its own. Many people also have a very false sense of how sure experimental scientific findings are, not realising that even in the hardest sciences they are often not repeatable.

I agree that science does not have a moral value. It is however, when done properly, the best thing we have for reality testing, at last as far as I know. I would be interested to hear more about your views re the limitations of science and its failures

There are so many examples in the medical field, drugs that don't work as expected, practices shown to be unnecessary. Ecological disasters around things we were told were ok. Industry funding science for its own benefit, industry directing the shape of scientific inquiry. Scientists who don't say or think the right things defunded. Null results that are never published. The majority of results in some fields being non-repeatable.

In terms of questions being non-scientific, science does not tell us what vaccination laws should be, whether we should institute policies on organ donation, what the economic effects of GMOs are, or whether we should try and replace workers with AI.

Not sure I understand

I mean if you tell people that these things are not issues, they will conclude you are stupid or biased. You cannot understand something like the anti-vax campaigns without looking at instances like the mesh scandal, or what is going on with gender therapy.

Thank you, Goosefoot, you say things so much better than I do.

Goosefoot I am pushed for time right this moment but I would like to engage with you further on this isssue.

I have some rudimentary grasp on philosophy but it is not my strong point. I am happy to be educated on an issue that you are evidently much more familiar with.

I suggest as follows.

We examine the video in my OP in detail and the issues it raises from an evidence based perspective. I am especially ingterested in how science has been misrepresented in terms of the transgender issue and also in relation to concepts of non-binary selves and multiple systems and of how the issue of "identified victim bias" has impacted on the anti-vaxx narratives and also the transgender narratives.

I also think that another relevant issue is that of social entrepreneurs, many of whom represent themelves as "humanitarians", "activists" and "experts by experience" are both promoting pseudoscience, making lots of money and exposing vulnerable people to harm.

We can examine these issues in detail together and hopefully learn from one another.

How does that sound to you?

Good points, Goosefoot, and I would be really interested to see this discussion, hoodathunkit/both!

I think vaccines are incredible, life saving medecine, for example, wonderful things - but when pregnant had a weird mixture of vaccines pushed on me for the potential avoidance of whooping cough for my unborn baby. There was, I found after much reading of Joint Committee notes and research, no credible evidence that my taking this vaccine would protect my foetus, and no evidence that it would not harm the foetus (or myself).

This is what gives me pause. Science is not always following its own methodology or best practise. Because, I suppose, science is applied by humans, subject to various interpretations, decisions and adjustments. It's imperfect, and scientism can be as damaging as 'anti-science'.

I just watched the video and it is pretty poor actually. The fact that anti-vax campaigners take speakers' fees does not really constitute the exposure of a huge conspiracy theory.

And it did not tackle any of the issues that people worried about vaccine safety raise.

For example, they had an expert just saying that there is no evidence for several concerns, but he did not refer to good clinical trials disproving those concerns. No evidence could, in fact, mean that there are no studies.

And yes, people will always be influenced by a story connected to one human being rather than statistics, but that is marketing, nothing to do with whether vaccines are good or bad.

Apologies for not posting sooner, I have been extremely busy with some research

I am feeling a little confused at this point and would appreciate some clarification, partly as I am extremely busy and need to pick my debates and partly because I am unsure whether we agree or disagree on basic issues.

I just watched the video and it is pretty poor actually. The fact that anti-vax campaigners take speakers' fees does not really constitute the exposure of a huge conspiracy theory.

If you are saying what I think you are saying you consider people like Andrew Wakefield and Del Bigtree to be credible and entitled to generate millions of dollars promoting their anti-vaxx conspiracy theories.

The video correctly claims that the anti-vaxxers are raking in millions on the back of their discredited theories. They are making lots of money putting children at risk of life threatening illnesses. It is disgusting.

Now, when I read Goosefoot's posts I wasn't sure whether she was saying that she understands Wakefield, Bigtree et al to be grifters and fraudsters but can understand why some very anxious people might be swayed by their arguments, or whether she was saying that they are credible sources.

I would very much appreciate clarification about that as I don't really have time to debate with people who believe that Wakefied, Bigtree et al are credible any more than I have time to debate with flat earthers or people who believe that aliens walk among us or that the Queen is a lizard.

And it did not tackle any of the issues that people worried about vaccine safety raise.

For example, they had an expert just saying that there is no evidence for several concerns, but he did not refer to good clinical trials disproving those concerns. No evidence could, in fact, mean that there are no studies.

The quacks who promote an anti-vaxx agenda have been shown to be committing fraud. Wakefield is a disgraced man with zero credibility.

It is not the job of me or anyone else to prove that aliens do not walk among us, the earth is round, satanic ritual abuse is not widespread, that men cannot become women or that the Queen is not a lizard.

It is for the people who make such extraordinary claims to back up their claims with evidence.

I have learned from bitter experience, over many years, that when people become obsessed with these conspiracy theories, that it is impossible to engage with them rationally. Part of the reason is that it is impossible to prove that things don't happen. How can I prove that the Queen is not a lizard? To someone who is obsessed with a belief that she is a lizard nothing I can say will alter their view.

Please accept my apologies if I have misunderstood your position.

Not sure who you're responding to,, hooda. I think Wakefield was a crook. Don't know who Bigtree is.

If anyone would like to read a wonderful selection of articles about Andrew Wakefield, authored by a highly qualified professor, the wonderful Edzard Ernst, they can be found here

edzardernst.com/?s=Wakefield

I was recently chatting to a nurse who works with very sick children at the end of their lives. Her job is very tough and she spends a lot of time supporting parents.

She told me she that she found the most difficult thing was supporting parents whose children were dying of measles. When she first qualified, decades ago treating children dying of measles was part of her work.

Then with the advent of widespread vaccinations children stopped dying. Now they are dying again and the awful thing is that it is completely preventable.

I understand that people have irrational fears. I understand that science cannot solve everything.

I understand that doctors and scientists sometimes publish research that is fraudulent as in the case of Wakefield and Bessel van der Kolk for example.

I understand that sometimes, as happened with vaginal mesh and fluoxitine, some drugs and medical interventions that greatly benefit many people have side effects that affect a minority of patients that are so serious that the whole issue needs to be re-examined and reconsidered.

I understand that science is not a religion.

I understand that bad science and academic fraud are at epidemic (actually pandemic) levels, especially in relation to neuroscience, sex and gender, mental health and sexual health.

I understand that quacks and charlatans misuse and misrepresent science to promote their businesses, neuroscience and quantum theory being favourites in this respect.

I understand that vulnerable people, especially those with serious medical conditions for which conventional medicine provides limited hopeful outcomes, will try to grasp at whatever straws are available to them.

All of this I understand, but I do not believe that Wakefield is credible and the above link to articles posted by a highly qualified professor, describes why

Don't even get me started on Del Bigtree and his highly dubious grifter associates, I would be here all day long, there are some very nasty, twisty rabbit holes associated with mr Bigtree and I would be happy to shine a light down some of them, but be warned, it is not pretty

Not sure who you're responding to,, hooda. I think Wakefield was a crook. Don't know who Bigtree is.

I was replying to Coyoacan

I am relieved to hear your opinion of Wakefield :)

As for Bigtree .......... there's a few hours of posting that I don't have time for this second, but soon :)

ScrimpshawTheSecond

if you have time, watch the video in my OP

It provides a good introduction to the activities of Wakefield, Bigtree et al and there are clearly many similarities to how their strategies for creating activist movements that are very similar to those to some TRAs

I think it is an important documentary and worth your time, if you have 20 minutes to spare

off the top of my head the similarities are as follows:

Promoting pseduoscience that harms children while claiming to help and protect children

Posing as humanitarians and activists for freedom of choice while actually making millions of dollars from exposing children to deadly diseases

Using narratives about freedom and empowerment to oppress and hurt

Using "indentifiable / identified victim bias" in campaigns. Using testimonies instead of evidence. Using vulnerable people as mascots.

There is probably much more, but now runing late so that will do for now

The bit about indentifiable / identified victim bias is at 11 minutes in approx