Another Caulfield-ism

The flood of poor quality information is hard to keep up with.

Here is yet another X post that was sent to me…

Why does this matter? Because truth matters. And because this guy apparently has almost 100,000 followers on X, and receives tax dollars to use X as an official academic work space under the guise of combating ‘misinformation’.

I could not find the source file for the data in the post. If anyone has it, please provide the link in the comments. If people really want to follow the science, look for: 1. data that have gone through the scientific peer-review process, or 2. transparent raw data for which materials and methods have been clearly delineated and executed by subject matter experts. I clicked on the links to EKOS Research and Voice of Franky but could not find this table, let alone how it was generated, nor how the terms were defined. I went to the website for EKOS Research but could not readily find it there either.

Obscure, non-peer reviewed data that cannot be independently validated are utterly useless. This is an example of how one should not go around trying to earn the trust of the public as a person who claims to follow the science.

I did a quick search to try to find out what EKOS Research is. Wikipedia claims, “The firm uses interactive voice response for its political polls”. If true, this methodology would immediately introduce a substantial bias in terms of the population that would be willing to tolerate this method. Why weren’t the ‘misinformed’ included in the analysis? How were ‘disinformed’ people identified? Did they voluntarily answer along the lines of ‘I received incorrect information from someone who knew it was wrong but tried to convince me it was true anyways; I know the information was wrong because that is how I can tell you that I was disinformed, but I believe the disinformation anyways and am choosing to use it to formulate my opinion’?

Otherwise, was the person/people from EKOS Research (identities of the researchers and their qualifications cannot be verified) that conducted the survey granted the authority to define what truth and disinformation are?

Of concern, McLean’s magazine highlighted that EKOS Research was not among the most accurate polling organizations.

Regardless, I cannot make an independent assessment of the quality of the data without seeing the complete study records. But there are obvious issues, such as the use of the terms '“informed” versus “disinformed”. Disinformation implies intent behind the spread of misinformation. Using the latter term and leaving the former out of the analysis suggests implicit bias in the conduct of the study.

Do I agree with Caulfield that misinformation about vaccines contributes to vaccine hesitancy? I sure do.

Do I agree with his contention that “vaccine hesitancy is a complex phenomenon“? No.

I think it is as simple as these Health Alberta-derived data as presented by CBC News, Calgary…

What happened between the 2020/2021 low vitamin D season and now? Purported ‘misinformation’ ‘experts’ spread vast amounts of demonstrable misinformation about COVID-19 shots. And then they struggle to understand why vaccine hesitancy has grown?!?

Caulfield, trust is earned, not owed. Try writing more comprehensive summaries of your thoughts. Cute sound bites that start with “Yep” don’t cut it for people interested in serious discourse about serious scientific issues. If it wasn’t so potentially harmful, I would not bother with this garbage. Do you not realize how much your demonstrable misinformation has likely led to this plummeting trust in vaccines against influenza in your own province?

And then Caulfield stated, “We need to listen, constructively counter, and depoliticize“. Well, listen to your followers, Caulfield. Have you read the comments to your X post? Please do. Otherwise, how are you modeling ‘listening’? Further, I saw no evidence of you responding, or as you would say, "‘constructively countering” the comments. People have a remarkable capacity for recognizing hypocrisy.

There are apparently over 200 comments. I empathize that reading them has likely become difficult. They are no longer overflowing with praises from adoring fans. Rather, it is the opposite. The majority of those commenting are challenging you to “constructively counter” their concerns. Why are you refusing to do this? You are taking their hard-earned tax dollars, using these monies to run your X account-based war on ‘misinformation’, and then promising them that they will come to see the light if only they could be blessed with the receipt of your constructive responses.

Caulfield, why do I say that I empathize with your challenge of reading disparaging comments? Because when I spoke inconvenient truths about COVID-19 long ago, I was lambasted with them, apparently including comments made by you.

So one must ask; why have you been massively ratio’d from primarily positive to mostly negative feedback over the past few years, while I have been ratio’d in the opposite direction?

I contend it is because “the truth will set you free”, but misinformation will be unveiled given sufficient time and enough people demanding truthful answers to critical questions. Also, I have invested massive amounts of time and energy into compiling the scientific bases for everything that I say into coherent and comprehensive, publicly available formats. As hard as it can be to interact with those of strong differing opinions, I have only ever offered to engage or try to engage even the most ardent haters in conversations about the science. You know this well. I have even shown great willingness to engage you in public discussions; to listen to you and to afford you the opportunity to “constructively counter” anything that I have to say.

In the end, those that walk the walk, even if it means walking through fire, will usually earn more trust than those who consistently limit themselves to talking the talk.

Stop talking and start doing what you say is important for earning public trust.

---