"Understanding and neutralising covid-19 misinformation and disinformation"
Where no propaganda article has gone before
Last week the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an analysis article as part of its Covid Inquiry series. The title? ‘Understanding and neutralising covid-19 misinformation and disinformation’.
It is a scandalous dogmatic defamatory (hemingwayapp tells me that I have used already too many adjectives, so I stop here) piece of propaganda drafted by eight people between academics and independent researchers. It is a call to the Covid Inquiry to investigate and take legal action against groups like the Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART), UK Medical Freedom Alliance (UKMFA), and UsForThem. These groups are actually specifically referred to in the article as exemplary of dis- and mis-information. All in the name of preserving the only acceptable truths that come from “trusted” sources.
The article is abhorrent on so many levels. And, indeed, it has attracted rapid responses from Clare Craig and Dr Rosamond AK Jones from HART, and Elizabeth A Evans, Dr Jon Rogers, Dr Sarah Myhill, and Adrienne Benjamin from UKMFA. Despite the constraint of the BMJ-imposed 600-word limit, they all do a great job at dismantling the 2,327-word article “rationales” on those many levels.
I also sent to the BMJ my response to the article. As I had the same length constraint, I focused on one aspect that I found incredible: the parallel that the authors draw between these groups and the tobacco industry. You can read it below here — where you also get intriguing and relevant images — or there.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not affiliated with any of the mentioned groups. But, in following the advice of my Italian grandfather, a humble farmer with two years of primary schooling, I like to also ‘ascoltare l’altra campana’ (‘listen to the other bell’).
The article should be retracted, and apologies should be given.
[Update: 2 December 2022, 17:50 UTC: one of the professors has responded to the responses. A piece not much evolved from its ancestral variant.]
Rapid Response:
Patient advocacy groups cannot be compared to the tobacco industry
Dear Editor,
Yuxi Wang and colleagues’ analysis, 'Understanding and neutralising covid-19 misinformation and disinformation' suggests directions to the UK Covid Inquiry.
The authors draw parallels between the tobacco industry and the organisations Children’s Health Defence, Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART), UK Medical Freedom Alliance, and UsForThem.
First they tell us that, like tobacco industry history of distorting science, these groups have distorted the science by taking opposite stances to the governmental ones, such ask on mask mandates, or COVID-19 vaccination in children. What multi-billion dollar interests these organisations have in flagging up possible harm signals from COVID-19 vaccine post-marketing data, in providing a reasoned view on the harm/benefit balance of COVID-19 vaccination in children, or in pointing out how the evidence around mask effectiveness is far from settled?
The tobacco industry has spent decades telling adults and children that cigarette smoking was safe and effective. Health benefits of cigarette smoking were promoted, especially around cognitive function and in the treatment of neurological disorders. I do not see how this can compare to any of the actions of the groups that the authors of the article have highlighted.
Second, as court orders were instrumental for obtaining tobacco companies’ internal documents and communications, the analysis advocates for the Covid Inquiry to take into accounts tweets and existing organisations’ leaked internal messages that, in the authors’ opinion, demonstrate lobbying and influencing governmental agencies involved in COVID-19 policy making. It seems disingenuous to compare this to the internal memos and millions of dollars spent in advertising and enrollment of healthcare professionals and governmental officials in the promotion of tobacco products.
The tobacco industry commands about a trillion US dollar of yearly revenue, and has a high level of litigation initiated by both side of the fence. The authors advocates for litigation against groups like the organisations mentioned. In the authors’ opinion, these groups, through false or misleading COVID-19 narratives discrediting public health measures, including non-pharmacological interventions, may have contributed to preventable illness and death.
The authors refer to increasing long covid cases in children, citing people self-reported statistics gathered by the Office of National Statistics. They seem to imply that these cases could have been prevented if the organisations above had not lobbied against children vaccination through undue influence on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). A recent systematic review shows that there is low grade evidence for reduction of long covid for infection after vaccination, and inconsistent evidence for vaccination after infection. COVID-19 vaccination for prevention of long covid is not evidence based.
The elephant in the room is a much better fitting parallel to the tobacco industry. It is that industry which commands a worldwide total revenue of 1.42 trillion US dollars, spends 3% of its income in litigation, keeps the facts form its customers and regulators, market its products and research programmes to children, lobbies governmental organisations, sponsors training and healthcare professional events, and funds selected charity and patients advocacy groups. A follow up analysis could advocate for the Covid Inquiry to seek this industry’s internal communication and that with governmental agencies, along with the non-redacted contracts it stipulated with our government, the full data set it holds about its COVID-19 related products, and the after marketing data of the effect of its safe and effective products on its customers.