Yep. This is exactly what I’ve been saying since the pandemic began. Anyone who’s followed the antivaccine movement can immediately spot the similarities between #COVID19 denial and antivax disinformation.
The only change I’d make is one of emphasis. The antivaccine movement is based at its heart on a conspiracy theory that vaccines are harmful/don’t work but “they” (CDC, medical profession, big pharma, etc.) are “suppressing” that forbidden knowledge.
#COVID19 denial is based on a similar conspiracy theory that COVID is engineered/not that deadly/plot to impose vaccination, but that “they” (CDC, deep state, public health infrastructure, etc.) are “suppressing” that knowledge.
The examples in the antivax world are numerous. Indeed, @delbigtree and @DrWakefield’s VAXXED was based on the #CDCwhistleblower conspiracy theory, which claimed that the CDC was covering up evidence that MMR increased the risk of autism in African-American boys.
Before that, in 2005, @RobertKennedyJr promoted the Simpsonwood conspiracy theory that claimed that—you guessed it!—the CDC covered up evidence that thimerosal in vaccines caused autism.
Indeed, pretty much all science denial is rooted in conspiracy theories in which scientists are portrayed as “suppressing” evidence supporting their denial. /end
Oh, one other thing. I don’t know if I I could’ve subjected myself to so many hours of @delbigtree without risking alcohol poisoning from the amount of scotch that would’ve been required to endure his ranting. So kudos to @doritmi and @aetiology for their constitutions.😂
This is why science deniers deny. They want to give the impression that there is an actual legitimate “debate” over scientific conclusions supported by mountains of evidence; e.g., climate change, vaccines, the ineffectiveness of alternative medicine, evolution, etc. 1/
In other areas of science not as well settled (e.g., #COVID19), they seek to undermine current scientific consensus by vastly exaggerating the evidence behind minority and fringe positions and mischaracterizing and minimizing evidence in support of current consensus. 2/
They then add to this technique conspiracy theories to “explain” why the fringe science is dismissed and not taken seriously by relevant experts and fake experts (plus the odd real expert turned fringe) to give the appearance of authority to fringe viewpoints. 3/
Because they're mostly not scientists, and few of the actual scientists are epidemiologists, and because they are spewing disinformation. #barringtondeclaration is propaganda, not science. 1/
#COVID19 deniers and conspiracy theorists are taking a page from a old crank playbook. Does anyone remember "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" and "Physicians and Surgeons Who Dissent from Darwinism"? These were similar "declarations" against evolution and for creationism. 2/
Or what about the open letter by the "Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis" calling for a "thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis [HIV-AIDS] be conducted by a suitable independent group"? 3/ sidasante.com/contacts/group…
Dumbest idea ever: A vaccine "debate" between two lawyers, @AlanDersh and @RobertKennedyJr, neither of whom has significant scientific knowledge about vaccines, and one of whom is rabidly antivaccine. 1/ ageofautism.com/2020/07/vaccin…
This sort of nonsense is what I like to call, "All Truth Comes from Live Public Debate." It's a favorite crank trope that serves two purposes. 2/ respectfulinsolence.com/2013/04/26/all…
Basically, this tactic serves two purposes for the crank. First, it allows cranks to appear on the same stage/venue as seemingly an equal to an actual authority, thus giving the appearance that their viewpoint is worth serious consideration scientifically or based on evidence. 3/
So there's a new disinformation campaign going around about masks in which @FoxNews and its sycophants, toadies, and lackeys cite @WHO recommendations that only people who are sick or who are taking care of patients with #COVID19 should wear a mask. 1/ foxnews.com/world/who-guid…
The headline of the article seems to imply that the recommendation is new, but the videos on the @WHO website linked to date back to early March and February. This part gives the game away: “The recommendation has not changed…” 2/
Some outlets, like @NYPost, ran the story and didn't even acknowledge that the @WHO recommendation is at least three months old, cutting out the part about the recommendation not having changed. 3/ nypost.com/2020/05/28/hea…
This is not new. It has actually been a long time coming. I've been writing about how antivaxxers have coopted far right rhetoric and have been becoming more extreme. Unfortunately #COVID19 has accelerated the process. 1/
For instance, in the 2016 election @delbigtree visited Michigan and ranted on about standing and, if necessary, dying for freedom, as his group went around buttonholing state legislators. 2/ respectfulinsolence.com/2016/10/28/nob…