Author: Manu Steens
A friend wrote me an email. He cited a number of websites and wrote:
” I must say, I believe less and less the prevailing views from the mainstream media … ”
By the mainstream media he meant, I understand, those media that let the authorities speak. He also provided a video message from ‘ the-iceberg ‘ and a Dutch version of it , as an alternative . These provide information that is contrary to the message of, yes, our governments.
In my view a case of misinformation.
But how do you recognize misinformation when people with a high IQ fall for it time and time again?
There are some basic rules that you can keep in mind when it comes to communication. Some should be used more in all communication, others should not:
- Simple words , not too much expert language.
- Support the spoken and / or written text with visual material.
- Use recognizable statements that could have been heard elsewhere ( familiarity )
- Use ” fluency ” : how easily something can be processed by the brain, eg text in an easy to read font .
- References to experts, but not to their work, which is difficult to trace.
- Use people’s gullibility to really get to know it all. (eg by an easy and associative name like ‘ the iceberg ‘: people become curious about what lies beneath the surface).
- Using figures without framing it, or material and images that are even irrelevant.
- Repetition of the desired statement.
- Use a good speaking rhythm to make it interesting. (The infotainment effect)
The video messages can be seen on:
When I analyze the Dutch version, I have the following reservations:
They remain very vague in terms of “the independent scientists”: I don’t know any myself. Each of the experts is paid by an interested party. So I don’t think there are any of them “independent”. Every top research is either sponsored by a government (often via universities) or by a (in this case mostly pharmaceutical) company.
So far the independence of the scientists they claim to cite. On the English website there is a whole list of names with impressive titles . No reference whatsoever to their relevant work on which they claim to be relying.
Furthermore, statistics are shown of the number of deaths per 1 000 000 inhabitants. This is not scientific, because every country counts differently. Besides, the correlation with lock -down, which they claim to show that would be zero, cannot be demonstrated that way.
The number of corona deaths counted according to WHO is for Belgium 10x that of the flu deaths counted according to WHO standards. A factor of 10: that is an order of magnitude larger, and it is not over yet. So it is not comparable to a ‘simple flu’ . That was one of the first misconceptions that was common in Europe, and of which no one knows where it originated.
The medication which “has been proven to work” according to the video, has been shown not to work. Yet this is maintained, as if someone has to get rid of a large stock. The fact that this has the chance to further become its own self-fulfilling prophecy is due to the fact that for a long time it was incorrectly predicted to be the solution. After all, repetition makes it recognizable.
This video scores very high in terms of infotainment content, but it is the wrong info. And in addition, in infotainment in general, they often make fun of science. For example, it is incorrectly claimed in the video that the lockdown would have been imposed only after the flattened peak, which they say is a “normal seasonal epidemic event”.