Countering a Dangerous Report Before it Gets Weaponized

Deputizing 'Misinformation' 'Experts' is the New Approach to Censorship

Our world is sliding ever deeper into the dangerous place of trying to define ‘misinformation’. Not all that long ago, a minority of people proposing that the earth might be round were accused of disseminating ‘misinformation’ by the flat-earthers. In 2023 it seems like many people still fail to appreciate the relatively fluid nature of science. Most of this fluidity, of course, is due to our human limitations in understanding the extreme complexities of our natural world. As we learn more, we need to be open to changing our opinions, especially if we want to claim to be following the overall weight of the scientific evidence.

Personally, I think the term ‘misinformation’ is being thrown around far too casually these days. It is being used to label people and cast a negative light on them. It seems to me that an adequate way to define the current usage is “something that is in disagreement with my way of thinking”. I would rather have purported experts on all sides of a topic brought together for a respectful scholarly discussion that can be made available to the public. Let each person present the data to back up their position. This would be the best way for people to assess the full scope and depth of the science. Real-time interactions is a great way to weed out the pretenders from the genuine experts. Then, let people make their own informed decisions.

I think it is downright dangerous to pick a handful of people who are like-minded and then grant them authority to declare what is ‘misinformation’ across a massive scope of science for which their credentials fail to cover in its entirety.

Enter the Council of Canadian Academies and their recently published report entitled “Fault Lines: The Expert Panel on the Socioeconomic Impacts of Science and Health Misinformation“. You can find it by clicking the link on this page.

Oh, the joy of seeing epidemiological modeling used to support name calling yet again!

You can view the biographies of the thirteen authors by clicking the link entitled “View Full Expert Panel“ on the same page linked above. These are the power brokers that were enabled with tax dollars to define what ‘misinformation’ looked like over the past few years.

Please take the time to review their credentials. For a major health crisis that occurred at the interface of the scientific sub-disciplines of immunology and virology, ask yourself how strong their credentials are and do they cover the full breadth of health science. Might there be a possibility that any of their views could be challenged by other experts using scientific data? Or is this report to be viewed as infallible? If there is even a single fallacy or disputable fact, then the report itself would be disseminating misinformation.

This group used their report as an opportunity to take potshots at a lot of groups. This included the Canadian COVID Care Alliance.

Here is our rebuttal:

23fe6 Ccca Response To Cca Misinformation Report

161KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

It is essential that people not allow others to declare themselves to be experts in identifying ‘misinformation’ if these people resolutely refuse to engage in discussions with those they are accusing. It is incredibly immature to publicly label someone as a ‘spreader of misinformation’ and be unwilling to prove in front of the public that you have a stranglehold on the truth.

We need to add a golden rule to the new ‘science’ of ‘misinformation’:

No person shall accuse another to have disseminated misinformation until a public, respectful, moderated debate has definitively proven that the accused is wrong.

A corollary to this is:

No person can legitimately be accused of disseminating misinformation if the accuser is unwilling to debate them in public.

To the expert panel that authored the Fault Lines report: Would you be willing to debate members of the Scientific and Medical Advisory Council of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance so the public can assess how valid your accusation against us is?

We are ready to defend our version of the truth; are you?

---