How to Spot Scientific Mis- and Disinformation

Well established science doesn't change for a single pathogen

They banned this as unsafe, but the true danger was the misinformation fueling fear.

The Real Science I Knew

When what you’re told goes against everything you’ve known until now, it may be prudent to start questioning the new information. This is not to say that new evidence should be discounted. Science is, or should be, about challenging old dogmas and revising premises based on new and reproducible findings. Still, some things have been proven repeatedly and known for generations.

That’s why, when COVID-19 hit, I was at first concerned but also suspicious. Videos of Chinese people suddenly dropping in the street and dying from this “novel” virus were a bit frightening at first glance, but I also knew that it didn’t make sense. No known virus had ever caused people to suddenly die without first showing symptoms. So, one appearing out of nowhere that supposedly did just that didn’t seem believable.

Shortly after, I learned that the renowned French Prof. Didier Raoult revealed that COVID-19 is easy to treat with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), so no worries. I therefore breathed a sigh of relief. By then, I knew enough about how narratives can be shaped so I questioned the studies that claimed HCQ, despite being long accepted as a useful treatment for certain ailments, was dangerous for one type patient - a person with a positive PCR test for COVID-19. Furthermore, Dr. Fauci should have known that a study conducted by the NIH and published in 2005 showed HCQ to be a viable therapy for the original 2003 SARS coronavirus epidemic and would therefore be likely to work for COVID-19.

When the COVID “countermeasures” were rolled out, I also knew that they contradicted what has been known till then about health and well-being. Sunshine (despite current dogma) and the outdoors have always been considered to promote good health and to be restorative to the body. In fact, before antibiotics, hospitals had solariums to keep patients outside so they could heal with the fresh air and sun. Being outdoors is also better than being indoors because people in closed quarters are more likely to spread illness to each other; the more cramped, the more contagious (as shown by this Finnish study). And, of course, for many people, especially children, exercise, also important for health, is often done outside and with friends. Yet, suddenly, people were being told to stay inside. That was the opposite of everything we knew.

As for masks, studies, including ones from before COVID-19, showed they not only failed to prevent infection, but could also be harmful.

Similarly, the 6-foot distancing, closing some businesses but not others, closing houses of worship but not casinos, had no historical precedent or sound basis. And, indeed, we’ve since learned that the “fifteen days to stop the spread” and the six-foot social distancing rule had no basis. The public was misled to believe that the vaccine would stop infection, but only if everyone was vaccinated, meaning that your vaccine was not enough to protect you. They said the same about masks—that yours wouldn’t work unless everyone wore one. Did that make sense? Not to me.

Keeping people apart also contradicted what we know about human contact and companionship. People need human contact to be healthy and sometimes to survive. But you were only allowed to be with those with whom you lived or had constant contact, leaving many people, seniors especially, isolated from loved ones. And, since when was it a bad idea for a family member be visited by a loved one in the hospital?

Promoting a rushed vaccine—which was truly novel, unlike coronaviruses—and limiting treatment to things like remdesivir (a drug shown to be more lethal than Ebola) and monoclonal antibodies, all under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), didn’t make sense, either.

All those, along with the other countermeasures and pronouncements, were red flags to me.

Consensus is Not Science No Matter What They Say

Another thing to be wary of is the claim of scientific consensus. Among others, the late science fiction writer Michael Crichton explained why there is no such thing as consensus in science:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

British economist John Kay made a similar point.

Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one.

Consensus finds a way through conflicting opinions and interests. Consensus is achieved when the outcome of discussion leaves everyone feeling they have been given enough of what they want. The processes of proper science could hardly be more different. The accomplished politician is a negotiator, a conciliator, finding agreement where none seemed to exist. The accomplished scientist is an original, an extremist, disrupting established patterns of thought. Good science involves perpetual, open debate, in which every objection is aired and dissents are sharpened and clarified, not smoothed over.

Often the argument will continue for ever, and should, because the objective of science is not agreement on a course of action, but the pursuit of truth. Occasionally that pursuit seems to have been successful and the matter is resolved, not by consensus, but by the exhaustion of opposition.

Keeping People Healthy is Science

What did make sense was the information emerging early on: people with more severe illness were often deficient in glutathione and vitamin D. Doctors using HCQ and ivermectin, and hospitals using vitamin C, were successfully treating patients. That’s science—addressing deficiencies and applying known treatments to help the body heal.

That’s why, when a 2015 research paper about vitamin D and upper respiratory infections appeared in my inbox, published in the Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, it caught my attention. COVID-19 was primarily a respiratory tract infection. The study indicated that vitamin D deficiency plays a role not only in upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs)—including the sinuses, nose, and throat—but also in lower respiratory infections such as RSV, which affects the lungs. Some studies have also noted that children may be more susceptible to RSV after a COVID-19 infection.

The researchers reviewed clinical studies that took place in different countries around the world involving both adults and children to assess vitamin D’s role in respiratory infections—particularly URTIs. Their review was prompted by discoveries at the time that the lungs and various parts of the immune system contain vitamin D receptors and enzymes that metabolize the vitamin. This is what they found:

Vitamin D plays a major role in keeping the immune system strong. It helps activate important immune cells and supports the body’s ability to fight infections by triggering the production of natural antibiotics called antimicrobial peptides. These peptides are especially important in the lungs, and can help defend against viruses like influenza. Researchers also believe that vitamin D affects how the body manages inflammation, which is key to recovering from both viral and bacterial infections. When vitamin D levels are too low, the immune system may not work as well—making people more vulnerable to illness.

Study observations concluded that:

• People with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were especially affected: lower vitamin D levels in these groups were linked to significantly higher rates of upper respiratory tract infections. Overall, the data showed a clear pattern—those with less vitamin D got sick more often—pointing to supplementation as a potentially simple, preventative measure for those most at risk.

• Across the board, vitamin D supplementation appeared to reduce the risk of respiratory tract infections, strengthening the case for its protective benefits.

• In the context of hospital care, vitamin D levels may even affect outcomes in critically ill patients. Hospitalized patients with severely low vitamin D levels—below 10 ng/mL—were more likely to develop hospital-acquired bloodstream infections.

• Those taking vitamin D supplements experienced fewer upper respiratory infections than those who did not.

• As vitamin D levels fall during winter, respiratory infections tend to increase—while higher levels are consistently linked to better lung function.

• Those with vitamin D levels of 38 ng/mL or higher had about half the risk of developing respiratory infections compared to those with lower levels. They were also ill for fewer days overall.

• Children given 1,200 IU of vitamin D daily during winter had nearly half the rate of influenza A compared to those receiving a placebo (10.8% vs. 18.6%).

• In individuals with tuberculosis, higher vitamin D levels were strongly associated with better lung function, as measured by FEV1. These findings echo the historical use of vitamin D-rich therapies—like cod liver oil and sun exposure—as treatments for tuberculosis before antibiotics were available.

• Low vitamin D levels are associated with an increased risk of developing active tuberculosis, suggesting a longstanding connection between deficiency and vulnerability to infectious disease.

• In chronic lung conditions like bronchiectasis, low vitamin D levels are linked to increased inflammation and a faster decline in lung function over a three-year period.

• Low vitamin D levels at birth may increase the risk of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections during infancy, suggesting that supplementation during pregnancy could offer protective benefits.

• In underdeveloped countries, fortifying foods with even small amounts of vitamin D has been shown to reduce respiratory infections in children, highlighting the potential of low-cost interventions.

• Vitamin D deficiency may contribute to recurring throat infections in children, such as tonsillopharyngitis. This suggests that a deficiency might contribute to persistent throat infections.

• Children with low vitamin D levels are more likely to experience frequent ear infections and fevers with discharge, underscoring the vitamin’s role in protecting the respiratory and related systems.

Science, Wisdom, and the Test of Time

It certainly seems that had health authorities focused more on helping people stay well rather than invoking “consensus” and waiting for a vaccine, many lives could have been saved during COVID-19, and much anxiety and anguish could have been prevented.

The takeaway is this: Centuries of accumulated science and wisdom don’t shift for one particular pathogen. It’s up to us to discern where the real mis- and disinformation is coming from—and to act accordingly.

The information contained in this article is for educational and information purposes only and is not intended as health, medical, financial, or legal advice. Always consult a physician, lawyer or other qualified professional regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition, health objectives, or legal or financial issues. ‍