December 5, 2022

Why is Nature Praising the Use of Propaganda During the Pandemic and Contacting for More?

Throughout the Covid period, those expressing views with odds with the dominant narrative were often subjected to unprecedented levels of  censorship and psychological manipulation. Academic periodicals played a significant role on this silencing of alternative sounds by, for example ,   ignoring  the work of established college students,   perpetuating bias,   rejecting research  papers that will reached conclusions inconsistent along with mainstream views, and demonstrating a financial […]#@@#@!!

Throughout the Covid era, those expressing views at odds with the dominating narrative were often subjected to unprecedented levels of  censorship and psychological adjustment .

Academic journals played a significant role in this silencing of alternative voices simply by, for example ,   disregarding   the work of established scholars,   perpetuating bias ,   rejecting research   papers that achieved conclusions inconsistent with mainstream views, and demonstrating a financial motivation to only publish studies favourable to the pharmaceutical business. As a consequence of this partiality, the particular perceived scientific integrity associated with academic periodicals has suffered substantial damage. Alas, a  recent article   in the once highly respected  Nature  diary will have done nothing to enhance the credibility of the academic press.

The article, titled “ Understanding the art of persuasion during a outbreak “, is a supplementary ‘ outlook’ piece authored by Elizabeth Svoboda, a Californian science journalist. Drawing on the particular perspectives of a cluster associated with social science experts, Svoboda lauds the importance of health policymakers deploying “ effective communication strategies” so as to ensure that the populace do the right things when faced with the next worldwide pandemic. She asserts that a range of behavioural science strategies, or “ nudges”, will be of central importance in enhancing compliance with general public health restrictions when the following novel respiratory virus emerges over the horizon. The article, nevertheless , is riddled with highly questionable assumptions and ideological biases.

The Covid science is not settled

Arguably the most blatant distortion, illustrated many times by both the author and the specialists cited, is that the Covid science is settled and their particular version is the definitive truth. The article opens with the preposterous suggestion that the official tips in early 2020 – that will masking healthy people would achieve no benefit – was a “ fateful moment”, a missed opportunity “ to stop the virus bringing the globe to a halt”. In support of this assertion, Rob Willer, a sociologist at Stanford University or college, describes this initial assistance as “ a big credibility mistake”, and goes on to claim that it was an example of public health experts trying to protect the supply of masks to health care. According to Willer, this commendable white lie led to many people feeling “ resentful” from having been misinformed and it fuelled their reluctance to adhere to subsequent mask requirements. Totally disregarded is that most of the more robust, real-world  evidence   concludes that masking healthy people achieves no significant reduction in viral transmission, as well as the U-turn in mid-2020 towards mask mandates was not the consequence of new research findings unfortunately he – more likely –   politically motivated .

Similarly, the raft of unprecedented Covid restrictions (lockdowns, shutting companies, school closures) inflicted upon Western citizens by the public health establishment are all believed to achieve important benefits so that the only challenge for the pandemic experts is how to persuade the pesky people to adhere to them. Consequently, the article cites the ideas of a variety of social scientists regarding the best way to effectively lever compliance with future public health diktats. Varun Gauri, a senior economist, highlights the importance of which makes it easier for people to ‘ do the right things’. Matthew Goldberg, a research psychiatrist, desires the psychological persuasion methods of behavioural science to be used pre-emptively “ so that once the time arises, people may act quickly”, a see echoed by infection-control specialist Armand Balboni. Katy Milkman, a behavioural scientist, encourages her strategies to enhance the take-up of Covid vaccines, which includes a “ regret lottery” where people are informed that will their names have been created a draw to win a lot of money, but that the “ winner” will lose the prize if not vaccinated.

Despite the wealth of gathered evidence that  lockdowns are ineffectual   in reducing Covid-related hospitalisations and cause huge  collateral damage , alongside the emerging realisation that will Covid vaccines may achieve no overall net benefits and can do  considerable harm , nowhere in the article is there even a touch of recognition that the restrict-and-jab doctrine of mainstream community health failed to achieve many of its stated aims.

One important negative consequence of the flawed ‘ science is settled’ assumption, as displayed by the author and her expert contributors, is that it justifies the censoring and vilification of anybody challenging the dominant story. For example , Varun Gauri states, “ During the COVID-19 pandemic, disinformation played a major part in sowing division and undermining the authority of health officials” and that this “ paved the way for fast viral spread and lower vaccination rates”. His solution is for authorities to “ take a bigger, legislative method of the problem” – the euphemism for censorship. Similarly, Katy Milkman warns against allowing “ conspiracy ideas to slither in”.

The dispute surrounding the acceptability of state-imposed ‘ nudging’

It seems that all those involved in the  Nature   article are blissfully unaware of the debate surrounding the state’s usage of covert psychological strategies (or ‘ nudges ‘) to promote compliance with Government restrictions. Blinded by their fixed belief that the Covid science is settled, and focused only on the objective of persuading the human population to ‘ do the right things’, the social researchers cited in the commentary blithely propose a range of behavioural science interventions without any questioning across the appropriateness and ethical acceptability of these clandestine methods.

Nudges are mental strategies of persuasion that largely impact upon their goals below the level of conscious attention – that is, people have no idea they are being influenced. Such techniques have been  heavily deployed   throughout the Covid era, and also have evoked a range of  ethical concerns   relating to the acceptability from the state strategically (and non-consensually) increasing the emotional soreness of its citizens as a means associated with promoting compliance with unparalleled and largely non-evidenced general public health restrictions. Also, since the strategies operate subconsciously, they might often be categorised because manipulative.

The particular expert contributors referenced in the  Nature  article repeatedly commend greater deployment of these ethically doubtful techniques in future pandemics. For example, Balboni urges political commanders to ensure human behaviour experts play a much bigger component in health policy, bemoaning that, during the Covid era, “ social scientists, anthropologists and psychologists were not used nearly enough”. Later within the article, the purported advantages of the “ pre-emptive application of behavioural science” can be highlighted.

A lot more specifically, the value of equating advantage with compliance with the limitations is lauded. This particular strategy – an ‘ ego’ nudge in behavioural technology parlance – was used repeatedly throughout the Covid event, effectively evoking shame in anyone who deviated from the needs of public health diktats and the vaccination doctrine. Several will recall the repeated ‘ I wear a face covering to protect my mates’ adverts, the ‘ don’t kill your gran’ quips by ministers, and the close-up images of acutely unwell hospital patients using the voiceover, “ Can you seem them in the eyes plus tell them you’re doing any girl to stop the spread associated with coronavirus? ” Of the exact same ilk was the NHS  document   (later redacted) advising front-line staff to tell young people that, “ Normality can only return, pertaining to you  and others , with your vaccination” (my emphasis).      

The  Character   article endorses the same tactic of differentiating the goodies from the baddies. It is stated that, “ Stimulating feelings of empathy that individuals could make them more likely to choose to protect others during a pandemic”. There are also references to the desirability of “ invoking associated with empathy” and emphasising “ the vaccines’ collective advantages, such as protecting others”. In the words of Balboni, it is definitely important to get people to identify that “ through their behaviour, they can actually safeguard other people”. Clearly, the particular considerable evidence demonstrating that  Covid vaccinations do not prevent viral transmission   has yet to achieve these nudge enthusiasts.    

In the Western supposedly liberal democracy, is it ethical for the state to strategically inflict shame on its citizens? Does the informed consent from the people, as to whether to simply accept a medical or mental intervention, no longer matter? Could it be acceptable to covertly impact the general population to follow good and largely non-evidenced Covid restrictions? Shamefully – pun intended – these crucial ethical considerations are totally disregarded in this  Nature  journal comments.  

The role of politics ideology and conflict of interests

What might account for the particular publication of such a partisan article in an academic journal?

Many critics associated with Covid orthodoxy have raised the spectre of an underlying globalist agenda, removed from any kind of democratic process, shaping Western responses to pandemic management. With the central involvement associated with the  World Financial Forum   (WEF), it has been argued that the crisis following the emergence of a book respiratory virus has been  opportunistically exploited   in pursuit of wider, pre-existing goals pertaining to tackling weather change and the imposition of Covid Passes and Digital ID, Social Credit Techniques, Central Bank Digital Foreign currency and Universal Basic Earnings (as detailed in  Agenda 2030 ). The authoritarian control over the particular world’s population (essential in order to realise such an agenda) is normally legitimised under the banners associated with ‘ the greater good’ plus ‘ social responsibility’, two themes that run through the  Nature  content. Is it possible that the author plus contributors adhere to this globalist ideology?

Exploration of the ongoing interests of those involved in the compilation of the article is revealing:  

  • Elizabeth Svoboda   is a regular contributor to  Greater Good   online journal.
  • Varun Gauri   is part of the WEF and a good economist at the Development Research Group of the World Bank.
  • Rob Fuller   is “ Director associated with Polarisation and Social Alter Lab” at Stanford University or college; he recently co-wrote an  article   in the  La Times  titled, “ How to convince Republicans to obtain vaccinated”.
  • Matthew Goldberg   is a analysis scientist at the Yale System on Climate Change Conversation.
  • Katherine Milkman is Deputy Director at the “ Behaviour Change for Good Initiative “, an enterprise that states it uses behavioural science to “ transform people’s life for the better”.

Would it be as well speculative to suggest that those people involved in the  Nature  article harbour the penchant for a new world order, and that these globalist proclivities may have compromised their objectivity?

Finally, my eye was drawn to the footnote to the article that will read: “ This article is part of  Character Outlook: Pandemic preparedness , an editorially independent dietary supplement produced with the financial support of third parties. ” And  who money this supplement ? Astra Zeneca and Moderna.

I rest my case.

Dr . Gary Sidley is a outdated NHS Consultant Clinical Psychiatrist and co-founder of the   Smile Free campaign. He blogs at  Coronababble .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *