At the HealthyDebate website, I’ve found a powerful rebuttal to a lengthy Jan. 22, 2022 Globe and Mail article about COVID-19
At an endnote at a recent post, I had originally referred to a Jan. 22, 2022 Globe and Mail article about COVID-19.
I have read a powerful rebuttal to the Globe article.
A powerful rebuttal
A Jan. 27, 2022 article at the HealthyDebate website by Concerned researchers and experts from CoVaRR-Net  is entitled: “Let evidence be our guide: Misinformation most insidious when it comes from health-care professionals.”
An excerpt reads:
The harm caused by such insidious distortions of science reverberate beyond the traditional anti-vaccine echo chambers. They cause harm even among many conscientious Canadians who do not typically fall prey to misinformation. The Saturday morning ritual of reading the Globe and Mail for a Vancouver family was turned on its head when the Doidge article was read. The family is vaccinated and waiting for third-dose appointments for two teenage sons. However, reading this piece fraught with misrepresented evidence opened the way for doubt and anxiety in the mind and heart of one parent. The other parent, a professor of immunology and microbiology, was able to address questions and offer reassuring, accurate information. What of the many Canadians who have experienced similar anxieties, doubts, and fears because of the misinformation sprinkled throughout this article and have little to no access to accurate sources of information?
‘Master narrative’ as framing device
I do not subscribe to The Globe and Mail. I stopped subscribing years ago in response to a columnist whose views turned my stomach, a columnist who has had, as I understand, a huge following among Globe readers.
I do read news reports from The Globe and find them useful. Having been interviewed by Globe reporters in years past, I’m impressed with the fact that reporters from the paper (I refer to cases where I’ve been interviewed) check back with interview subjects, sharing a draft, before the article goes to print. I refer specifically to medium-length articles of years ago, where a reporter is not bound to a very tight deadline.
That’s a good way to ensure that what an interviewee says is accurately represented in the article that gets published. I am now following the same procedure for interviews I am conducting for a book project.
That said, the Jan. 22, 2022 Globe opinion article and the Jan. 27, 2022 HealthyDebates rebuttal have together served as a wake-up call, an eye-opener, for me. My initial thought was that the Globe article was of interest. I began to read it closely and proceeded with an online search to see what comments the article had elicited. That is how I came across the HealthyDebates rebuttal.
With the Jan. 22, 2022 article about COVID-19, we have a writer whom a comment, at the comments section at the end of the HealthyDebates article, characterizes as ‘a bit of an influencer/entertainer.’
The Globe article is by a psychiatrist who is not knowledgeable about the subject matter that he purports to address.
The article’s message is delivered by means of a reference to what the psychiatrist characterizes as a ‘master narrative.’
Such a reference serves, in this particular case, as a delivery vehicle, a rhetorical strategy, for the widespread dissemination of misinformation about COVID-19. [2, 3, 4]
A Feb. 3, 2022 CBC article is entitled: “The base rate fallacy and what Premier Scott Moe got wrong about COVID-19 spread in Sask.: Experts say Scott Moe’s claim vaccines no longer protect people against COVID-19 transmission is wrong.”
An excerpt reads:
Experts say that although the Omicron variant has lowered the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing transmission, that doesn’t mean they’re useless.
“[Vaccination] actually does reduce transmission significantly, particularly when a person has a booster,” said Angie Rasmussen, a virologist with the University of Saskatchewan.
Experts say the premier’s conclusion appears to be based on multiple misunderstandings.