‘Study’ on COVID-19 ‘Misinformation’ Propagates CDC Misinformation

Introduction

In my September 1 article “Spike Protein Found in Blood 6 Months After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination”, I observed how the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has propagated misinformation about COVID‑19 vaccines, including by falsely claiming to this day that the mRNA and the spike protein it causes the cells to produce are rapidly eliminated from the body after inducing the desired immune response.

After discussing the accumulating evidence that both the vaccine mRNA and spike protein can persist for months, to highlight the complicity of the scientific community in the censorship of truth and propagation of government disinformation, I referenced another recently published paper:

Illustrating the contempt for truth that is so pervasive within not only the government and media establishments, but also within the scientific community, a “study” by academics from the school of “public health” at the University of Massachusetts published in JAMA Open Network on August 15, 2023, set out to determine what types of “misinformation” about COVID‑19 had been propagated by physicians in the US.

Absurdly, the researchers defined “misinformation” as any information that was “unsupported by or contradicting” information from the CDC.

In the first paragraph of the JAMA paper’s introduction, the authors make clear that their aim is to produce results conducive to the policy goal of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to increase COVID‑19 vaccination rates.

To conduct what the journal calls an “investigation”, the authors searched social media platforms as well as the New York Times and National Public Radio (NPR) “to identify COVID‑19 misinformation communicated by US-based physicians”.

This resulted in “52 physicians” identified as having been essentially guilty of the crime of heresy against the vaccine religion by sharing information that didn’t align with the government’s policy aim of achieving high vaccination rates.

As a result of the authors’ methodology, for a physician to share information that caused “mistrust in institutions” was equivalent to spreading misinformation.

Absurdly, the authors attempted to feign objectivity by suggesting that they were giving physicians the benefit of the doubt by accusing them of “misinformation” rather than “disinformation” because “the intent of the propagator cannot be objectively assessed.”

Of course, had they truly desired to remain objective, their operative criterion would have been whether the information was factually accurate rather than whether it was CDC-approved.

The paper provides a useful case study into how the scientific community has been complicit in advancing a regime of censorship that aims to establish a government monopoly on the spread of disinformation in furtherance of the political agenda of medical authoritarianism.