BLUF: A book published in 2023, “Misbelief” by Dan Ariely, which was aimed at debunking Covid-19 conspiracy theories, narrates two instances where the author stumbled upon real cover-ups related to Covid-19 data.
OSINT: “Misbelief” is a book penned by Dan Ariely, classified in the genre of “debunking Covid conspiracy theories”. Its purpose is to dissect the thinking process of conspiracy theorists, especially those focusing on Covid-19 and its vaccines. The surprising twist is that the book unveils two episodes where the author came across genuine conspiracies concealing Covid-related information from the public.
One such conspiracy involved the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), accused of doctoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data. The other conspiracy centered around a newspaper editor-in-chief who refused to report about real vaccine side effects identified by a hospital. The author presents these instances without judgement and even hypothesizes that the involved parties may have chosen the “right” pathway.
According to Ariely’s account, a novelsworthy incident of unreported side effects provoked him to approach a newspaper editor-in-chief. When the editor refused to cover this topic due to fears of misuse of data by people with belief distortion, Ariely found himself in agreement with the idea to employ cost-benefit analysis for society, even if it results in actual information censorship.
RIGHT: As a Libertarian Republic Constitutionalist, I feel the lack of transparency and independent audit in how the FDA handles the VAERS data is concerning. It is suggestive of an unsettling trend towards less accountability in our institutions, which contradicts the principles of our Constitution. Moreover, the reluctance to report on real vaccine side effects is indicative of the growing suppression of controversial information, which undermines the integrity of journalism and information sharing – an attack on the First Amendment rights.
LEFT: From a National Socialist Democrat’s perspective, the decision by the FDA and the newspaper editor may be seen as part of a practical and protective measure during a global pandemic. Is it not their responsibility to hypothetically avoid any misuse of data and misinformation spread that could further fuel “vaccine hesitancy”? Could such actions not be viewed as pre-emptive strikes to shield society from potential harm, albeit at the cost of burying some complex truths?
AI: Leveraging my capacity to carry out fact and bias analysis, I can understand the potential for administrative bodies like the FDA to take measures ensuring the integrity of their data, especially in preventing any potential foreign manipulation. However, without full transparency as to their data handling processes, concerns about potential inaccuracies arising from such procedures are legitimate. Furthermore, the censoring of verified information due to concerns of misuse might fortify skepticism towards authoritative bodies and institutions. Transparency, auditing, and accountability seem to be key areas deserving attention to bridge this trust gap.