"5 Ways to Spot if Someone is Trying to Mislead You When it Comes to Science"
A helpful lesson in wading through COVID-19 misinformation from Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University.
An article titled “5 Ways to Spot if Someone is Trying to Mislead You When it Comes to Science” was published in Australia’s premier blog for academics in March 2021.
The article was written to help non-thinkers who might feel overwhelmed or fearful from the spread of dangerous COVID-19 misinformation:
“It’s not a new thing for people to try to mislead you when it comes to science. But in the age of COVID-19 — when we’re being bombarded with even more information than usual, when there’s increased uncertainty, and when we may be feeling overwhelmed and fearful — we’re perhaps even more susceptible to being deceived. . . People who are trying either to make you believe something that isn’t true, or to doubt something that is true, use a variety of strategies that can manipulate you very effectively.”1
The five malevolent ways we could be deceived were:
The ‘us versus them’ narrative
‘I’m not a scientist, but…’
Reference to ‘the science not being settled’
Overly simplistic explanations
Cherry-picking
Whilst not an exhaustive list, these were highlighted as the main approaches, which, if we could recognise them, might prompt us to seek out more reliable sources of information.
Most recently, this same author published another opinion piece in The Conversation about Robert F. Kennedy Junior’s confirmation as the Secretary of the US Health and Human Services Department (HHS).
And he doesn’t appear too happy about it.
Commencing with an ad hominem attack in the title, it is clear that Vally is none-to-keen on Kennedy. The article portrays Kennedy as a science-denying, unqualified crackpot who has fallen into the most important public health role, arguably in the world.
The choice of headline image, however, is more problematic.
In our opinion, it is plainly gutter journalism.
The image paints Kennedy in a similar light to the article’s theme, evoking feelings of doubt, mistrust and ridicule. Mocking Kennedy’s neurological condition, spasmodic dysphonia, which affects his speech and facial expressions, is utterly disappointing and a departure from The Conversation’s stated editorial policies to be professional and ethical:
“We will not belittle or humiliate and will be ethical and professional across our entire publication.”2
As poor as this opening was, it was not this which piqued our interest.
Rather, it was our recall of the March 2021 article and how we could detect and avoid being misled when it comes to “Science”.
We make no assertions that the Vally had any intention to mislead or deceive in his RFK Jr. article, but when the same person who warned us about these traps ends up setting them, it raises an obvious question: did Vally fail to recognise his own blind spots, or, did he assume no one would notice?
In this article we analyse Vally’s takedown of Kennedy through the lens of his March 2021 article to determine the ways that we too, could be misled by the mischaracterisation of Kennedy and his views.
1. The “us versus them” narrative
Vally’s piece casts Kennedy as a dangerous outsider attacking the noble institutions of science. Instead of engaging with Kennedy’s arguments and evidence, it presents a good versus evil story where Kennedy is a “conspiracy theorist” opposing “real scientists.”
By suggesting Kennedy lacks the scientific credentials, he implies that only scientists can meaningfully engage with science. The appeal to authority is illogical and it also denies the many examples of scientific breakthroughs made by “outsiders” in history.
These matters aside, Vally probably should have also looked at the long list of former HHS Secretaries. Very few have had any medical or scientific credentials, and many, like Kennedy have been lawyers, whilst many others were economists, politicians, or healthcare administrators.
2. ‘I’m not a scientist, but…’
Vally proposes that “alarm bells should ring loudly” if someone wants to keep an “open mind” on matters of science and evidence. What is demanded is blind obedience to the status quo which prompts the question, if “The Science” was so settled, then what is the harm in questioning it or having an open mind, as Kennedy surely does about vaccine safety, drinking water fluoridation or infectious disease research?
The other troublesome aspect of Vally’s warning is how we respond to observational evidence and anecdotal evidence, particularly with respect to COVID-19 “vaccine” safety. Would a potentially “vaccine”-injured person read Vally’s article and be expected to not keep an open mind about even the mere possibility that the “vaccine” could have caused their injury if they were not a scientist?
Of course not.
3. Reference to ‘the science not being settled’
A core tactic of misinformation, according to Vally, is “overstating uncertainty”. But in his attack on Kennedy, he commits the opposite sin: acting as though no uncertainty exists at all.
The fluoride-IQ debate? Dismissed.
Vaccine safety concerns? Treated as disinformation, despite documented examples of regulatory failure.
Science is never settled, but Vally wants readers to believe it is, whenever it suits his argument. Vally even goes as far as to point out how the tobacco industry designed the playbook for this misinformation approach; to raise doubt, create confusion and undermine the science. He seems completely unaware, or unwilling to admit, that these exact same strategies have been used by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, the State and the legacy media to either censor or marginalise anything contrary to orthodoxy.
The evolution of Vally’s ideas throughout the pandemic provides further evidence still that of course “The Science” is never settled. For example, in March 2020, Vally said we could reduce our risk by “regularly cleaning and disinfecting surfaces that are touched a lot”. But, by February 2021, he wrote the article “Catching COVID from surfaces is very unlikely. So perhaps we can ease up on the disinfecting”.
“The Science” changed and so too did Vally’s ideas.
Imagine thinking that the COVID-19 “vaccines” would end the pandemic back in 2021.
Well, as it turns out, yes, Vally believed this was the case. Not only was the virus circulating because we weren’t “vaccinated” sufficiently, but our only option was to “eliminate” the virus and “wait for the effect of vaccines to kick in”.
This was August 2021!
“The number of fully vaccinated people isn’t even close to the levels required to attenuate transmission. . . . Right now, we still have a very infectious virus circulating in a mostly non-immune population. . . . The only option is to respond aggressively and eliminate the virus in order to enjoy some freedoms while we wait for the effect of vaccines to kick in. . . . Getting vaccines into people is the priority and the faster we do this, the faster we move to the final phase of the pandemic in this country. The pandemic has been a marathon, and we have collectively hit the wall. But if we push through and get vaccination coverage up past 70%, the end is in sight.”3 [emphasis added]
Once again, of course science is never settled and suggesting so is an overly simplistic explanation.
More on that next.
4. Overly simplistic explanations
Kennedy’s positions are woefully mischaracterised. His concerns about vaccine safety are flattened into outright “anti-vaccine” sentiment. His focus on chronic disease research is framed as a reckless abandonment of infectious disease science. The result? A cartoon villain, rather than an honest assessment of what his leadership might actually mean for public health.
Incredibly, Vally’s slanderous piece published yesterday is guilty of the exact thing which he warned against in his March 2021 article. In this article, he acknowledged:
On the one hand Vally suggested those who stated they were keeping an open mind about “The Science” were being deceptive. On the other hand, science was “messy, complex and full of nuance”. Both positions are obviously incompatible with one another. The only way to believe both was to employ doublethink.
Yes, we agree.
“We’re naturally drawn to simple explanations. And if they tap into our fears and exploit our cognitive biases — systematic errors we make when we interpret information — they can be extremely seductive.”5
Like that one about how the “vaccines” have saved millions of lives through the pandemic and it would have been far worse without them.
5. Cherrypicking
Vally accuses Kennedy of crafting narratives by picking and choosing any study that fits his worldview. Yet his own article does exactly that by selecting only the most extreme or controversial Kennedy quotes while ignoring his actual positions, such as his repeated statements in favour of vaccine safety (not against vaccines themselves).
Conclusion
The confirmation of RFK Junior represents a seismic shift in public health policy that will send ripples to Australia.
It will prickle the sensitivities of the establishment who have dominated COVID-19 discourse ; censoring and marginalising alternative viewpoints since the first questions were raised about pandemic policy.
If Kennedy is successful with his transformation of American public health through improved nutrition, proper vaccine safety regulation, and the removal of toxic elements from its food and water supply, then shrieks like those from Vally will pale into the blogosphere where they belong.
If Kennedy succeeds, then what “public health” embodies will change for the better and we can go on with ignoring these mouthpieces and their familiar rants.
The challenges that await Kennedy are an angry and frustrated establishment desperate to undermine and discredit him.
An establishment that has been particularly skilful at predicting things.
Could this include the deployment of another pandemic?
The noted vaccine-pest, Peter Hotez, described many of these infectious diseases “coming down the pike” for the new administration in a strange rant in December 2024:
Which resembled the “surprise outbreak” predicted by the little man way back in 2017:
Has anyone checked in on Monkeypox recently?
How’s Bird Flu tracking these days?
Is anyone scheduling Event 202 in the coming months?
Perhaps the severe flu season California is grappling with will morph into something new and deadly?
Very little will shock and surprise us these days, but thankfully, at least we are aware of five ways that science could be used to mislead us.
Vally, H., “5 Ways to Spot if Someone is Trying to Mislead You When it Comes to Science”, https://theconversation.com/5-ways-to-spot-if-someone-is-trying-to-mislead-you-when-it-comes-to-science-138814, accessed 15 February 2025.
The Conversation, “Global Editorial Guidelines - Section 4: Harm, Offence, Discrimination”, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DUkhOcnF1Ef1MpuKtGr7rbBAawO4XV48/edit, accessed 15 February 2025.
Vally, H., “Should We Give Up on Covid-Zero? Until Most of Us Are Vaccinated, We Can’t Live With the Virus”, https://theconversation.com/should-we-give-up-on-covid-zero-until-most-of-us-are-vaccinated-we-cant-live-with-the-virus-166269, accessed 15 February 2025.
Vally, H., op. cit.
Ibid.
Was listening on the Bulwark to Mona Charon's podcast with a young mother, who was indignant that several years ago in California, parents could refuse vaccines for their school aged children based on a personal belief exemption which no longer exists today. This woman and author believed it was a transgression to have such an exemption in place, as allowing unvaccinated children in classrooms put her own vaccinated children at risk. Many references to Bobby Kennedy as being anti-vaccine rather than seeking safer vaccines were peppered through the interview. His confirmation has really ruffled many feathers and subgroups are fighting back. However, it will be as apparent that aluminum in shots is harmful as smoking is harmful soon enough. The established view will change, and I wonder how these insulters will react.