Misinformation is like porn—people think they know it when they see it. But I’ve spent over a year studying medical misinformation and found the term not particularly enlightening. The dictionary calls it “misinformation, especially one that is intentionally intended to deceive”.
The difference applies to star Spotify podcaster Joe Rogan and his controversial interviews with scientists. The most critical episode, which featured biologist Robert Malone’s concerns over COVID vaccines, marginalized in comparison to what the audience believed, but there is no reason to believe that Malone was lying rather than expressing wildly overconfidence. Had been.
In medical matters, broadcasting minority views can lead to people making poor decisions, such as skipping jobs, so Spotify’s solution—an advice with a spot-cast—is appropriate. What celebrity singers and their fans are flagging as misinformation has a subjective quality that makes it impossible to police scientifically. There is a spectrum of minority opinion in science – from the daring and visionary to the insane and dangerous. The question for Spotify and others is how to tell the difference and present minority views responsibly, in the right context, so that audiences understand where the real value of the evidence lies.
This means that minority arguments must be supported with reason and evidence. For example, Rogan and I have interviewed science writer Gary Tubbs, whose minority view on high-fat diets has gained traction. And I’ve also interviewed vaccine expert Paul Offit, who has written a book on a variety of mainstream medical beliefs, from the need for cancer screening and daily vitamins to the essentials of fighting fevers. Recently, they have taken a reverse turn by not advocating for the COVID booster mandate, although they do support boosters for those at high risk.
The problem with Rogan’s Malone episode wasn’t that he criticized Covid jobs. We must take all medical interventions seriously. And on the surface, Malone might seem like a proper voice on the pandemic. His experiments 30 years ago helped form the foundation for mRNA vaccines. The problem was that his criticism relied on plain speculation and baseless claims.
Three-plus hours of thickening with Malone covers ivermectin as experimental therapy, side effects of covid jabs including menstrual irregularities, in addition to concerns that vaccines will worsen disease, shortcomings in clinical trials and confusion over the wax effect on transmission.
My podcast covered these topics as well. But unlike Malone, my interview subjects mostly spoke in their specific areas of expertise, and offered scientific evidence. They also drew very different conclusions from him. Some, such as chemist Derek Lowe, used not only the data, but an understanding of biochemistry to explain why jabs are unlikely to increase susceptibility to disease, even though it is the case with other vaccines. Have happened
Malone’s arguments were ongoing and often rested not on evidence, but on his claimed internal position in the US Department of Defense and other government agencies. Sometimes there was a kernel of real data, but their interpretations were dangerous. While other experts have raised concerns about menstrual irregularities, they suggested the shots would cause premature menopause. That point needed refutation.
In an apology, Rogan promised to try to bring in guests “with differing opinions.” It’s laudable, but what really matters is making sure the audience knows the scientific consensus. Mavericks always capture the public imagination. In 2012, Rogan interviewed Peter Duesberg, an acclaimed virologist who holds the opposite view that HIV does not cause AIDS. Colleagues have said their criticisms were valuable in the 1980s, but there is now overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Many mainstream journalists gave airtime to Duesberg because the public loves a good Dalit story—no one believed the rebel’s victory. It’s also one of the reasons why media outlets gave Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes a free pass when she claimed she was changing the world of blood testing. But the burden of proof should be on the maverick to bring powerful evidence. Science writer Gary Tubbs did it when it came to kicking off a low-fat diet. Malone and Holmes instead relied on name-dropping, innuendo and sometimes paranoia.
Sure, the crowd could be wrong. Dissenting views are worth listening to as long as they are supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Asking the media to censor “misinformation” won’t work because it’s not that simple. Most people don’t know it when they see it.
Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint.
download
Our App Now!!
,