The Lancet‘s editors have established a commission to counter ‘misinformation and disinformation.’
The Lancet‘s editors have established a “commission” to recommend means by which the powers that be can stifle open debate — er, I mean, counter misinformation and disinformation — about public health and scientific policies. From, “The Lancet Commission on Rethinking Misinformation, Health, and Human Security” announcement (citations omitted):
The UN and the World Economic Forum have identified misinformation and disinformation as top global risks — ranking them as higher short-term threats than extreme weather, state-based armed conflict, and cyber insecurity.
Time to look in a mirror! Public health officials, not their critics, shattered the public’s trust.
Remember when we were told by public health institutions and international leaders that social distancing was a necessary response to Covid and then found out the directive had no scientific basis? And when we were told that vaccines mandates were necessary to prevent infection — even for the very young, who rarely became seriously ill — only to discover that jabs reduced the severity of disease but did not stop transmission? Talk about an exploding cigar! And when we were assured that a leak from the Wuhan lab didn’t unleash the pandemic, only to find that such a scenario indeed seems to have been its cause, and that the NIH helped fund the gain-of-function research that might have caused the virus’s infectiousness?
These examples — and others that could be provided from the past several years — are not the “misinformation” and “disinformation” with which the commission will grapple, don’t you know:
In 2021, then US Surgeon General Vivek H Murthy issued a report that warned “Health misinformation is a serious threat to public health. It can cause confusion, sow mistrust, harm people’s health, and undermine public health efforts.” Sadly, the USA has since become one of the biggest sources of misinformation, with global repercussions. Specific misinformation and disinformation around vaccines, fluoridation, or the health impacts of climate change are harmful in themselves. Yet misinformation also undermines trust in the scientific process and, over time, may result in a populace that rejects scientific evidence more broadly.
See my first comment above. Also note that the dire predictions about the worst potential impacts of global warming with which we have been pummeled for years were based on unlikely modeling scenarios. Whoops.
The Lancet‘s commissioners claim that disinformation and misinformation aren’t the only problems!
New approaches are needed, with new thinking. This is not simply a matter of information versus misinformation or disinformation; it is far more complex than that. A large portion of the narratives undermining health and human security are not explicitly spreading misinformation, but manipulating emotions, leveraging underlying anxieties, instilling fear, and polarising society.
In other words: analyzing the data differently, expressing heterodox opinions, and arguing for alternate policies than those favored by the ruling elite? We can’t have that!
Have no fear! The Lancet‘s commission is riding to the rescue.
It is time to systematically address misinformation and disinformation in a health context. A new Lancet Commission on rethinking misinformation, health, and human security will convene experts from risk science, security, the social and political sciences, mathematics and computer science, and health to rethink a systems approach to misinformation and disinformation threats to human health and security.
This Commission will analyse the ways in which misinformation and disinformation affect health. It will investigate the mechanisms and pathways through which misinformation interacts with factors such as trust and distrust, and how they disrupt research, undermine trust in science and health, and impact on health outcomes. We envision a more dynamic, responsive, and systemic response to protect health and health systems from the consequences of these new influences on health and human security, while leveraging the positive opportunities of new technologies.
The announcement isn’t explicit about this, but I suspect that it means imposing more effective censorship, increased stifling of dissenting voices, and strengthening technocratic control over policy deliberations and promulgation.
When the commission issues its report, I will let y’all know if I was right.