The one with the rumour: COVID-19-related conversations on Pakistani Twitter

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a massive crisis exacerbated by the spread of misinformation on social media. Twitter is a highly popular microblogging platform in Pakistan, and the large population there lacks digital literacy, making them vulnerable to various forms of online and digital propaganda. This study aims to analyse the content of COVID-19-related tweets from Pakistan.

STUDY DESIGN

The current study is a content analysis of COVID-19-related tweets in Pakistani Twitter during the early stages of the pandemic, with a particular emphasis on misinformation, political content, health-related content, risk framing, and rumours.

METHODS

The Twitter data were obtained and anonymised by a third party for this study. The selected tweets were manually coded, and the following thematic tweet categories were identified: Science, Data, Pseudoscience, Healthcare, Conspiracies, Policies and Politics, Humour, and Pandemic life.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Results indicated that the Policies and Politics category contained the majority of tweets (46.3%). Most science-based tweets focussed on nonpharmaceutical interventions (68.8%). As anticipated, the categories of Pseudoscience and Conspiracies were found to contain the most misinformation. Additionally, the number of likes and retweets for different tweet categories were compared, and no significant differences were found.

Scientific Integrity Requires Publishing Rebuttals and Retracting Problematic Papers

Recently, an article by Seneff et al. entitled "Innate immunosuppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs" was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Here, we describe why this article, which contains unsubstantiated claims and misunderstandings such as "billions of lives are potentially at risk" with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, is problematic and should be retracted. We report here our request to the editor of FCT to have our rebuttal published, unfortunately rejected after three rounds of reviewing. Fighting the spread of false information requires enormous effort while receiving little or no credit for this necessary work, which often even ends up being threatened. This need for more scientific integrity is at the heart of our advocacy, and we call for large support, especially from editors and publishers, to fight more effectively against deadly disinformation.

Pseudoscience and fraudulent products for COVID-19 management

As of now, the COVID-19 pandemic has become uncontrolled and is spreading widely throughout the world. Additionally, new variants of the mutated viral variants have been found in some countries that are more dangerous than the original strain. Even vaccines cannot produce complete protective immunity against the newer strains of SARS-CoV-2. Due to such a dreadful situation, lots of fear and depression have been created among the public. People are looking for the treatment of the disease at any cost and there is a race in the market to provide treatment and make money, whether it is effective or not! In such a condition, many fraud products, remedies, and myths have come into the market, which is falsely claimed to be effective for the disease and can harm the patients. Hence, FDA has banned such products and remedies. In this review, we have compiled all such fraudulent and pseudosciences identified for COVID-19. Currently, in the pandemic time, health agencies are approving the repurposed medicines based on the small-scale clinical data for emergency uses that become ineffective (most of the cases) after large randomized clinical studies. Proper vigilance strategies need to be defined by the regulatory agencies of the nation and routine awareness programs shall be arranged for educating the people and healthcare workers on routine updates.

The Public Discussion on Flat Earth Movement: An Analysis Based on the Esperantist‑Epideictic Discourse

The paper reflects on public discourses about science and pseudoscience, proposing the same discursive structure for both-the Esperantist-Epideictic genre. This genre of discourse might bring together characteristics that we understand as constituents of the public discourse on science. It also enables us to depict the process by which to maintain cohesion on a group's values. The discursive activity points to science as neutral, free, and independent of social influences captivating those already in this discursive sphere. The discursive hermeticity appears in the Esperantist content and the Epideictic form by avoiding the dialogical situations where there is no epistemological and axiological dispute. We thus, show that the Esperantist-Epideictic genre helps to understand the process of maintaining a cohesive group whose beliefs about the Flat Earth appear in social media. We use data from three sources: transcriptions from seminars held at that 1st FlatCon Brazil, most viewed videos on YouTube where affirmationists talk about Flat Earth, and semi-structured exploratory interviews conducted at FlatCon. Our findings indicate that some conceptions of validation of knowledge, scientific method, science bias, reality, and truth compound a distinct part in the current conversations about the Flat Earth movement. Moreover, the Esperantist-Epideictic genre of discourse can be an analytical tool for framing the echo chamber in social media while defending or attacking the Flat Earth movement. We conclude that in a time where there is a growing consensus that science is under attack, the ways in which its defenders are trying to stand up to it may be causing some harm.

Genuine versus bogus scientific controversies: the case of statins

Science progresses through debate and disagreement, and scientific controversies play a crucial role in the growth of scientific knowledge. However, not all controversies and disagreements are progressive in science. Sometimes, controversies can be pseudoscientific; in fact, bogus controversies, and what seem like genuine scientific disagreements, can be a distortion of science set up by non-scientific actors (e.g., interest groups). Bogus controversies are detrimental to science because they can hinder scientific progress and eventually bias science-based decisions. The first goal of this paper is to elucidate the distinction between bogus and genuine scientific controversies and provide a qualitative methodology, based on the literature on expertise, for distinguishing between the two. We will illustrate six epistemic criteria for distinguishing bogus from genuine scientific debates in science and medicine. This heuristic strategy applies directly to scientific reports, and it relies mostly on the social structure of science. We will then apply the above criteria to a case study: the controversy over statins, which are widely prescribed drugs for reducing the level of cholesterol and preventing cardiovascular disease.

Adherence to Social Distancing Guidelines Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Roles of Pseudoscientific Beliefs, Trust, Political Party Affiliation, and Risk Perceptions

BACKGROUND

Adherence to COVID-19 social distancing guidelines varies across individuals.

PURPOSE

This study examined the relations of pseudoscientific and just world beliefs, generalized and institutional trust, and political party affiliation to adherence to COVID-19 social distancing guidelines over three months, as well as the explanatory role of COVID-19 risk perceptions in these relations.

METHODS

A U.S. nationwide sample of 430 adults (49.8% women; mean age = 40.72) completed a prospective online study, including an initial assessment (between March 27 and April 5, 2020), a 1 month follow-up (between April 27 and May 21, 2020), and a 3 month follow-up (between June 26 and July 15, 2020). We hypothesized that greater pseudoscientific and just world beliefs, lower governmental, institutional, and dispositional trust, and Republican Party affiliation would be associated with lower initial adherence to social distancing and greater reductions in social distancing over time and that COVID-19 risk perceptions would account for significant variance in these relations.

RESULTS

Results revealed unique associations of lower governmental trust, greater COVID-19 pseudoscientific beliefs, and greater trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to lower initial adherence to social distancing. Whereas greater COVID-19 risk perceptions and CDC trust were associated with less steep declines in social distancing over time, both Republican (vs. Democratic) Party affiliation and greater COVID-19 pseudoscientific beliefs were associated with steeper declines in social distancing over time (relations accounted for by lower COVID-19 risk perceptions).

CONCLUSIONS

Results highlight the utility of public health interventions aimed at improving scientific literacy and emphasizing bipartisan support for social distancing guidelines.

The more, the merrier: Treatment frequency influences effectiveness perception and further treatment choice

Causal illusions have been postulated as cognitive mediators of pseudoscientific beliefs, which, in turn, might lead to the use of pseudomedicines. However, while the laboratory tasks aimed to explore causal illusions typically present participants with information regarding the consequences of administering a fictitious treatment versus not administering any treatment, real-life decisions frequently involve choosing between several alternative treatments. In order to mimic these realistic conditions, participants in two experiments received information regarding the rate of recovery when each of two different fictitious remedies were administered. The fictitious remedy that was more frequently administered was given higher effectiveness ratings than the low-frequency one, independent of the absence or presence of information about the spontaneous recovery rate. Crucially, we also introduced a novel dependent variable that involved imagining new occasions in which the ailment was present and asking participants to decide which treatment they would opt for. The inclusion of information about the base rate of recovery significantly influenced participants' choices. These results imply that the mere prevalence of popular treatments might make them seem particularly effective. It also suggests that effectiveness ratings should be interpreted with caution as they might not accurately reflect real treatment choices. Materials and datasets are available at the Open Science Framework [https://osf.io/fctjs/].

Resurecting raciology? Genetic ethnology and pre-1945 anthropological race classification

This article places the current high-profile and controversial scientific project that I call 'genetic ethnology' within the same two-century tradition of biologically classifying modern peoples as pre-1945 race anthropology. Similarities in how these two biological projects have combined political and scientific agendas raise questions about the liberalism of genetics and stimulate concerns that genetic constructions of human difference might revive a politics of hate, division and hierarchy. The present article however goes beyond existing work that links modern genetics with race anthropology. It systematically compares their many similar practices and organisational features, showing that both projects were political-scientific syntheses. Studying how the origins, geography, filiations, 'travels and encounters of our ancestors' affect 'current genetic variation', both seem to have responded to a continuous public demand for biologists to explain the histories of politically significant peoples and give them a scientific basis. I challenge habitual contrasts between apolitical scientific genetics and racist pseudoscience and use race anthropology as a parable for how, in the era of Brexit and Trump, right-wing identity politics might infect genetic ethnology. I argue however that although biology-based identities carry risks of essentialism and determinism, the practices and organisation of classification pose greater political dangers.

Cicero's demarcation of science: A report of shared criteria

The problem of establishing intensional criteria to demarcate science from non-science, and in particular science from pseudoscience, received a great amount of attention in the 20th century philosophy of science. It remains unsolved. This article compares demarcation criteria found in Marcus Tullius Cicero's rejection of genethliac astrology and other pseudo-divinatory techniques in his De divinatione (44 BCE) with criteria advocated by a broad selection of modern philosophers of science and other specialists in science studies. Remarkable coincidences across two millennia are found on five basic criteria, which hints at a certain historical stability of some of the most fundamental features of a concept of "science" broadly construed.

The idealist and pragmatist view of qi in tai chi and qigong: A narrative commentary and review

Qi, often translated as "vital energy," is a central concept in tai chi and qigong that has puzzled physicians, scientists, and people in the West. To date, qi is not falsifiable by the scientific method and thus cannot be subject to scientific inquiry, leading many to criticize it as "pseudoscientific." Even as medical research reveals the health benefits of tai chi and qigong, many wonder how to treat this seemingly outdated concept when promoting these meditative practices. While some tai chi and qigong practitioners insist on the existence of qi, more skeptical thinkers suggest that a scientific understanding should replace this "superstitious" idea. Integrative health professionals must be equipped to discuss this concept intelligently by considering a couple of subtle, clarifying points often missing from the discussion. First, science's inability to verify qi's existence does not affirm its nonexistence. In fact, under the philosophical system of idealism, qi might not be said to be less real than things that are verifiable by science. Similarly, under the instrumental and pragmatic view of science, health professionals should be cautious not to declare what is metaphysically real or unreal but instead what is useful and not useful. Second, even though qi may be pseudoscientific, it remains useful and indispensable to the correct practice of tai chi and qigong. Tai chi and qigong practitioners routinely visualize and perceive the flow of qi to guide their movements, breathing, and mental activity. As such, qi and related metaphysical concepts serve as a useful mental model during practice, and belief in them may be viewed as an "expedient means" to achieve one's health goals.

A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity

Background

In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports.

Main body

We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response.

Conclusion

In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system.

Protecting consumers from fraudulent health claims: A taxonomy of psychological drivers, interventions, barriers, and treatments

OBJECTIVE

Fraudulent health claims-false or misleading claims used to promote health remedies that are untested, ineffective, and often harmful-cause extensive and persistent harm to consumers. To address this problem, novel interventions are needed that address the underlying cognitive mechanisms that render consumers susceptible to fraudulent health claims. However, there is currently no single framework of relevant psychological insights to design interventions for this purpose. The current review aims to address this gap.

METHOD

An integrative theoretical review was conducted across several relevant disciplines including criminology; behavioural economics; and cognitive, health, and social psychology.

RESULTS

The current review presents a novel taxonomy that aims to serve as an agenda for future research to systematically design and compare interventions based on empirical evidence. Specifically, this taxonomy identifies (i) the psychological drivers that make consumers susceptible to fraudulent health claims, (ii) the psychological barriers that may prevent successful application of interventions, and (iii) proposes evidence-informed treatments to overcome those barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

The resulting framework integrates behavioural insights from several hitherto distinct disciplines and structures promising interventions according to five underlying psychological drivers: Visceral influence, Affect, Nescience, Misinformation, and Norms (VANMaN). The taxonomy presents an integrative and accessible theoretical framework for designing evidence-informed interventions to protect consumers from fraudulent health claims. This review has broad implications for numerous topical issues including the design and evaluation of anti-fraud campaigns, efforts to address the growing problem of health-related misinformation, and for countering the polarisation of politically sensitive health issues.

Pseudoscience in medicine: cautionary recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Certain real life applications of scientific and social science ideas that knowingly reject accumulated empirical biomedical evidence have been termed 'pseudoscience,' or empirical rejectionism. An uncritical acceptance of empiricism, or even of evidence-based medicine, however, can also be problematic.

OBJECTIVES

With reference to a specific type of medical denialism associated with moral failure, justified by dissident AIDS and anti-vaccine scientific publications, this paper seeks to make the argument that this type of denialism meets certain longstanding definitions for classification as pseudoscience.

METHODS

This paper uses a conceptual framework to make certain arguments and to juxtapose arguments for evidence-based approaches to medicine against literature that highlights certain limitations of an unquestioning approach to empiricism.

RESULTS

Discussions of certain real life examples are used to derive the important insight that, under certain conditions, moral failure can result in the violation both Type I and Type II scientific error types, with catastrophic consequences.

CONCLUSION

It is argued that the validity of all theory should not be assumed before sufficient empirical evidence has accumulated to support its validity across contexts. However, caution is required, to avoid the consequences of an unquestioning approach to empiricism.

Public Perception of Autism Treatments: The Role of Credibility and Evidence

We explored the influence of credibility and evidence on public perceptions of ASD treatments using survey methodology. Participants (N = 379) read texts about different ASD treatments. The text presentation was based on a 2 × 2 within-subjects factorial design with treatment status [evidence based practices (EBP) vs. non-EBP] and source credibility in the text (credible vs. non-credible) as the independent variables. An instructional manipulation condition served as a between subjects factor. Respondents were more familiar with non-EBPs than EBPs, but viewed EBPs as being more credible and were more likely to endorse them compared to pseudoscientific practices. Interactions between source credibility and instructional manipulation were found on ratings of credibility and recommendation of both EBP and non-EBP texts. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Review of a forensic pseudoscience: Identification of criminals from bitemark patterns

The forensic sciences are a combination of laboratory procedures and physical comparisons of objects associated with victims, perpetrators, and crime scenes. The former is largely university-based protocols adopted by crime labs. The latter is predominantly pattern-matching tools originally developed by police examiners or experts deemed by courts to be relevant to forensic matters. These Court accepted experts bring their reasoning and conclusions into the legal arena. This subgroup of forensics has undergone significant scrutiny in regards to its history of exaggerated claims and weak scientific foundations. This paper addresses the rise and fall of bitemark pattern analysis (i.e. "matching" bitemarks in human flesh to human teeth) in the environment of opposing interests and agendas.

Scientism and Pseudoscience: A Philosophical Commentary

The term "scientism" is used in a variety of ways with both negative and positive connotations. I suggest that some of these uses are inappropriate, as they aim simply at dismissing without argument an approach that a particular author does not like. However, there are legitimate negative uses of the term, which I explore by way of an analogy with the term "pseudoscience." I discuss these issues by way of a recent specific example provided by a controversy in the field of bioethics concerning the value, or lack thereof, of homeopathy. I then frame the debate about scientism within the broader context of C.P. Snow's famous essay on the "two cultures."

Claiming Darwin: Stephen Jay Gould in contests over evolutionary orthodoxy and public perception, 1977-2002

This article analyzes the impact of the resurgence of American creationism in the early 1980s on debates within post-synthesis evolutionary biology. During this period, many evolutionists criticized Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould for publicizing his revisions to traditional Darwinian theory and opening evolution to criticism by creationists. Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium was a significant source of contention in these disputes. Both he and his critics, including Richard Dawkins, claimed to be carrying the mantle of Darwinian evolution. By the end of the 1990s, the debate over which evolutionary thinkers were the rightful heirs to Darwin's evolutionary theory was also a conversation over whether Darwinism could be defended against creationists in the broader cultural context. Gould and others' claims to Darwin shaped the contours of a political, religious and scientific controversy.