Thread by @alexandrosM

The Surgeon General's toolkit to identify misinformation claims one can search the CDC website to see "what the latest research is saying".

In this 🧵I will show you why, by its own standards, the document itself is misinformation, in a fundamental way.

hhs.gov/sites/default/…

The key question any guide to identifying misinformation must answer is how to arrive at truth, so that one can know what misinformation even is.

This document points to the CDC website as the authoritative source.

Does the CDC website fit this definition?

Well, it tells us that the idea that POST-INFECTION (aka. Natural) immunity being "better" than vaccine-generated immunity is a "MYTH".

cdc.gov/coronavirus/20…

Is that true? Well, not according to "the latest research". By the CDC, that is. Yes, that's not a typo, this claim is demonstrably false, as shown by the latest CDC research. euronews.com/next/2022/01/2…

Reading the paper, it's been a consistent pattern throughout the period they investigated. Not only is it not a "MYTH", it's a reasonable position that should be investigated, and it fact it appears to be true.

cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…

In fact, it's not in dispute, having being backed by over 150 studies to date. The ONLY vocally dissenting body was.. CDC. But now they've finally given up and after two years of the pandemic confessed to what their data has been showing all along. brownstone.org/articles/79-re…

This is not a minor issue, either. It's arguably the most important question of the pandemic, from which policies on lockdowns, vaccination, masking, mandates, and most other policies depend. And the CDC has it catastrophically, avoidably wrong, contradicting their own research.

So if the authority that the Surgeon General's misinformation toolkit points to gets such a fundamental claim about the pandemic so disastrously wrong, it can't be a reliable reference that people should refer to. This is the most important thing for such a guide to get right.

This means that the toolkit itself misinforms the people it claims to help... at the task of spotting misinformation. And you only need CDC sources to demonstrate this, which, according to the guide, are in fact reliable.

In fact, the CDC has been a source for comically bad science throughout, or more likely, papers constructed in violation of the scientific method, to provide backing for a politically expedient position. Many such cases demonstrated by @VPrasadMDMPH here: tabletmag.com/sections/scien…

And if misinformation coming from YouTube channels is dangerous, isn't misinformation coming from official sources far more dangerous? It's one thing for an elder relative to be misled, and another for the whole medical establishment and the policy framework itself to be misled.

So if the Surgeon General really is focused on reducing the prevalence of misinformation, I suggest he knocks on Rochelle Wallensky's door with some tough questions, and then take a long hard look at the mirror, before he goes asking around. news.yahoo.com/us-surgeon-gen…

The concept of equality before the law goes at least as far back as the Magna Carta. A government cannot be pursuing individuals based on a standard of which it is the most prominent and consequential violator.

While not a medical professional, I suspect a prescription of extra strength intellectual humility might be in order. It's off-patent though, so I don't expect they'll take my advice.