Dr. Peter A. McCullough met with Dr. Claudia Chaufan, who shared her manuscript on pandemic-related misinformation. He critiques the misuse of "misinformation" in academic medicine as a tool for oppression, stifling debate on topics like SARS-CoV-2 and genetic vaccines. McCullough argues that terms like “evidence-based” and “consensus driven” require long-term scholarship, not short-term definitions. He promotes a scholarly approach to labels such as misinformation and conspiracy theorist, advocating for more thoughtful discourse.
Scoping Review Uncovers New Expertise in COVID-19 Misinformation Classic Propaganda Tool Finds Its Way Into Academic Medicine Wed, 18 Sep 2024 09:43:59 GMT https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/scoping-review-uncovers-new-expertise By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
I met up with Dr. Claudia Chaufan recently in Toronto, Ontario. She shared with me her most recent manuscript which was a scoping review on the topic of misinformation mainly as it relates to the pandemic.
Chaufan C, Hemsing N, Heredia C, McDonald J. Trust Us—We Are the (COVID-19 Misinformation) Experts: A Critical Scoping Review of Expert Meanings of “Misinformation” in the Covid Era. COVID . 2024; 4(9):1413-1439. https://doi.org/10.3390/covid4090101
Disturbingly, this classic propaganda technique where the perpetrator claims to hold agency over the truth and then uses the arrow of “misinformation” to injure the victim is now fully entrenched in modern academic medicine. Anytime one wants to gain an advantage over another, they can accuse their opponent. This form of academic oppression can cause great harm and stifflies scholarly interchange particularly on a novel topic such as the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and genetic vaccines.
Dr. Claudia Chaufan with Dr. McCullough at “What’s Next” hosted by Canadians for Truth, Witby, Ontario, September 14, 2024.
The question is where does this go from here? I find it counterproductive for two sides to be accusing one another of “spreading misinformation.” Shields such as “evidence-based” and “consensus driven” have been used by those attempting to grab moral superiority in defining what they are talking about. For both of these terms to apply, we need decades of scholarship and debate. They don’t arrive with the newest pandemic virus in the first few years and are certainly not defined by agencies in the pandemic business.
Please enjoy this scholarly approach to a new problem in academic medicine—propaganda terms including: misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, anti-science, anti-vaxxer, and conspiracy theorist. I will not use them in referring to another person and encourage the same back from them.
Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Please subscribe to Courageous Discourse as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
President, McCullough Foundation
Chaufan C, Hemsing N, Heredia C, McDonald J. Trust Us—We Are the (COVID-19 Misinformation) Experts: A Critical Scoping Review of Expert Meanings of “Misinformation” in the Covid Era. COVID. 2024; 4(9):1413-1439. https://doi.org/10.3390/covid4090101