Home Blog Page 28

As an always-online Gen Z, it’s impossible to avoid conspiracy theories on social media

Katharina Anita Szigeti
-
0
As an always-online Gen Z, it’s impossible to avoid conspiracy theories on social media

It all started with a curious mind and an innocent scroll through social media. Little did I know that within 15 minutes and two YouTube videos later, I’d be plunged into a world where ordinary people, indistinguishable from those we pass daily in supermarkets or at flower shops, were fervently texting until beyond midnight in Telegram groups. Their mission? Crowdfunding for a camera to capture celestial evidence to support their flat earth theory.

This was just the beginning. My TikTok For You page soon overflowed with conspiracy theories about body healing, while Instagram politics unfurled a new layer of hidden, dangerous ideologies.

In the digital age, marked by rapid technological advancement and unprecedented access to information, Generation Z stands at the forefront of a digital revolution. Growing up in a world immersed in social media, instantaneous communication, and a wealth of knowledge at their fingertips, this generation faces a unique challenge as they navigate the intricate terrain of the internet. While this era of digitisation has ushered in incredible opportunities and connectivity, it has also witnessed the alarming proliferation of conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation across social media platforms.

The dangerous spread of conspiracy theories online is powerful, quietly moulding the thoughts and actions of a generation that’s always online. These theories, often lacking any factual basis, can have serious consequences, leading to the spread of fear, and even violence.

Conspiracy theories have almost certainly existed for as long as society has been around. During the Middle Ages, there were conspiracy theories claiming that Jews were causing plagues by poisoning well water. The upheavals and uncertainties in Europe after the Middle Ages led to further conspiracy theories, including the belief in a widespread network of witches and Satanic forces – put forth in the “Malleus Maleficarum”. The invention of the printing press and church sermons contributed to their dissemination, resulting in witch hunts that claimed thousands of lives.

In the 18th century, the target of conspiracy theories shifted in the United States from Jews to groups like the Freemasons, who were accused of plotting for power. In the 19th century, American Protestants feared being overrun by Catholics. Today, in modern Germany, the idea of being taken over by Muslims is promoted, with prominent figures like Eva Herman and right-wing politicians spreading such conspiracy theories. In the past, the Illuminati and Jews were accused of secretly controlling the world; today, the blame might equally fall on reptilian humanoids (though many would argue these are simply antisemitic notions in modern packaging).

Conspiracy theories on social media platforms can have real-world consequences, from stoking fear and anxiety to inciting violence and hatred. On TikTok, I’m bombarded with claims that the world is secretly ruled by a powerful, shadowy group. In a daily Instagram story, I was recommended to do a full moon ritual and load crystals, even though I don’t own any. Even in my day-to-day life, a friend excitedly shares an article about how horoscopes predict significant global events with spooky accuracy, and on the bus I overhear that all politicians are part of a grand scheme to mislead the public. It’s a bewildering collage of theories and claims, infiltrating seemingly every corner of my digital and social landscape.

I decided to delve deeper, by finding conspiracy groups to follow on Telegram. I knew that Telegram was popular with misinformation and conspiracy theory groups. I thought since this world was so hidden from me, it would be difficult to access, since generally, I believe if something is so off the wall, you would think it needs a lot to find and enter it. I was completely unaware of the extent of these groups, but I quickly realised, that once you know what you´re looking for, it is incredibly easy to join a group. You simply enter it. No need for requests or assumptions; with one click you become part of the community, and witness to their deep beliefs.

What I saw left me shocked: a world parallel to ours, with people convinced of the most absurd notions. I scrolled the chats, looking at pictures that tried to convince me that the earth is flat, and messages with three exclamation marks to send to friends and family to educate them and show them the truth about the leading news media of America hiding the truth about Joe Biden. But what I quickly realised too, it was a world of community and shared beliefs. Frustration quickly became apparent in every group, regardless of belief, they all had one thing in common: the conviction of knowing the truth and the frustration that people do not believe you. People who seem totally rational, except in this one area, are completely invested.

The spread of conspiracy theories is not a random occurrence; it relies on the human need for belonging and acceptance and is accelerated by the power of social media algorithms. With headlines such as “Biden Unveiled – Boris Johnson Whispers “You are not Joe Biden – Who the bloody hell are you” or “With Article 23, the private illegal German Bundestag was stripped of all economic areas on July 17, 1990. On October 3, 1990, Germany was officially changed to a fiction within the UN. Germany does not exist; it is a part of the USA”, the QAnon group tries to convince people on Telegram about the truth they believe in.

For example, consider how the “QAnon” conspiracy theory gained momentum by using cryptic messages. Misleading information, similar to how the false claim of 5G causing COVID-19, spread like wildfire. QAnon, a far-right conspiracy theory that surfaced in the U.S. in 2017, alleges a global plot against former President Trump by a cabal of Satan-worshipping paedophiles in high-ranking positions. Originating on internet forums, it gained traction through cryptic posts from an insider called “Q,” hinting at a battle led by Trump against this ‘deep state.’ Followers interpret these “Q-drops” to reveal supposed truths.

Despite its popularity, QAnon is widely discredited and criticised for promoting baseless, dangerous beliefs and has been linked to real-world violence. It has been debunked and faced bans on social media for inciting violence and spreading misinformation.

“QAnon is a phenomenon worthy of serious analysis, global tracking, and large-scale intervention,” according to Cynthia Miller-Idriss, professor at the School of Public Affairs and director of PERIL. “It is vital to draw attention to QAnon’s truly frightening potential for destabilization and permanent damage to our democratic system.”

Proponents offer simple explanations for complex problems, or appeal to people’s emotions, like the way anti-vaccine activists prey on parents’ fears about their children’s health. They promise to reveal the “truth” that the mainstream media won’t tell you, much like how climate change deniers suggest that scientific consensus is part of a global conspiracy. People do not choose what they believe based on a careful, rational evaluation of evidence; they often gravitate towards ideas that align with their preexisting worldview or respond to personal traumas and vulnerabilities. And with every like, share, and comment, these theories gain more traction, creating a snowball effect, as seen in how the false claims about COVID-19 vaccines went viral on social media. It’s a dangerous game, and we must all be aware of the tactics used by conspiracy theorists and do our part to stop them in their tracks.

The global COVID-19 pandemic created a perfect storm for the proliferation of conspiracy theories, with lockdowns and uncertainty pushing many to seek explanations for the unexplainable. Conspiracy theories often emerge out of societal crises. People question why the pandemic happened, which results in anxiety and insecurity. Fears start to build, and it’s easier to seek out explanations for events that provide a sense of control or understanding. Conspiracy theories can offer a simple explanation for complex events, which can be appealing to individuals who are struggling to make sense of the world around them.

The hidden world of conspiracy theories on social media thrives, lurking beneath the surface, much like an iceberg with only a fraction visible. For many people, Google, YouTube, and Facebook represent the extent of their online universe, but beneath the surface lies a sprawling network of Telegram groups, message boards, and encrypted chat rooms where the wildest theories are cultivated and shared. Many people are unaware of these groups’ existence and the extent of their impact. These online communities serve as echo chambers, where like-minded individuals reinforce each other’s beliefs.

For individuals deeply invested in their beliefs, every event, no matter how small or coincidental, is often seen as a confirmation of their worldview. Take, for instance, the case of a nurse who experiences adverse effects from a Covid vaccine. To those already skeptical of vaccines, this becomes not just an unfortunate medical incident, but proof of their wider conspiracy theories.

This mindset, where everything is interpreted as happening for a reason aligned with one’s beliefs, is dangerous. It transforms normal life events into a conspiracy narrative. People start with wellness trends like yoga or crystals and gradually progress to more extreme beliefs, often propagated through YouTube and other platforms. Each step may seem insignificant, but over time, these small shifts accumulate, leading them far from their original standpoint without them realising the gradual change in their beliefs.

One of the key drivers behind the prevalence of conspiracy theories on social media is the algorithmic nature of these platforms. The goal of social media algorithms is to maximise user engagement and length of stay on the network. To achieve this, they often show content that aligns with a user’s existing beliefs and interests, creating a filter bubble that shields users from dissenting opinions.

But why should we care about this hidden world? Why should it matter to Gen Z and to society at large? The answer lies in the fact that this world, while hidden, is very real and poses significant dangers. The casual indifference with which many dismiss conspiracy theories can have grave consequences, as those we care about may fall victim to these ideologies. It’s not about dismissing people; it’s about understanding how misinformation spreads.

For instance, I spoke to Lisa, 24, who explained, “I came across Telegram groups which presented their ideas in such a compelling way that it was easy to get caught up in them. They used persuasive techniques, visuals, and confident narrators, which made their arguments seem convincing. When you’re alone in your room, watching these videos or scrolling through these groups, it’s easy to feel like you’re part of a community that knows something everyone else doesn’t.

“It wasn’t that I thought everyone around me was entirely wrong; it was more about feeling like I was uncovering hidden truths that others were oblivious to. The conspiracy theories presented an alternative narrative, often challenging the mainstream view, and it made me question whether I should trust traditional sources of information like parents, friends, or the media. It was the idea of being an independent thinker that pulled me in, but looking back, I see that it created a divide between me and those I cared about.”

The infiltration of conspiracy theories in Generation Z’s digital realm is not just an issue of misinformation; it’s a startling transformation of their reality, often leading them down a rabbit hole of shocking and potentially dangerous beliefs. This generation, constantly connected to a world of unfiltered information, encounters theories that aren’t just fringe ideas but are sometimes outlandish and extreme, yet presented in a way that’s alarmingly persuasive to young, impressionable minds.

Take, for example, the bizarre and alarming instance of the ‘Birds Aren’t Real’ movement, an initially humorous parody of a conspiracy theory, which claimed that birds are government surveillance drones. While absurd on the surface, its widespread discussion on platforms like TikTok and Instagram reflects how easily Gen Z can be swayed into entertaining and potentially even believing in such far-fetched ideas.

The realm of politics isn’t immune either. Conspiracy theories like QAnon do not just warp political views; they have led to alarming incidents and real-world violent actions, including the storming of the Capitol in Washington. People who once might have been passive observers are now being radicalised into taking extreme and sometimes unlawful actions based on these unfounded theories.

In terms of environmental impact, the conspiracy-driven denial of climate change among Gen Z can have long-lasting repercussions. This isn’t just skepticism; it’s a disturbing dismissal of scientific evidence, leading to apathy and resistance towards environmental conservation efforts, further exacerbating the climate crisis.

This unchecked spread of misinformation comes with stark consequences. Young minds, still forming their worldviews, are bombarded with claims that challenge and often contradict established facts. The shock factor here is not just in the content of these theories but also in the ease with which they spread and the depth of their impact. These aren’t just background noise; they are actively shaping Gen Z’s perceptions and decisions, often in ways that are counterintuitive and potentially harmful. It distorts their understanding of science, history, and current events, leading to a generation that may be increasingly skeptical of facts and more susceptible to fringe beliefs.

This susceptibility is not merely a matter of being misinformed; it’s a gateway to deeper societal issues, including polarisation and the erosion of trust in institutions. The shadowy side of the internet, largely unknown to many, poses a silent but significant threat to the fabric of our society.

In today’s world, where information is a constant barrage, media literacy and critical thinking aren’t just good skills to have; they’re essential survival tools. These skills teach you not just to question the authenticity of what you read or watch, but also to understand the intentions behind the information. It’s about becoming a savvy navigator in the sea of digital content, where you’re as much a detective uncovering truths as you are a consumer of information. By honing these skills, you’re equipping yourself to stand firm in an era where facts and fiction often blur, ensuring you remain grounded in a world that’s constantly trying to sway you.

If you’re concerned about what information you might be consuming, start by tuning into your emotional GPS. Are conspiracy theories making you feel anxious or overly suspicious? Acknowledging these feelings is the first step in building a mental firewall against manipulation. When you encounter a conspiracy believer, it’s like stepping into a hall of mirrors. Will you find your way through with calm reasoning, or will confrontation only lead you deeper into the maze? Remember, every interaction is an opportunity to practice empathy and maybe, just maybe, gently guide someone back to reality.

This digital realm, often unseen but actively shaping the perceptions and decisions of Generation Z, poses a silent yet significant threat to the fabric of our society. From misinformation about public health to the erosion of trust in institutions, the impact of these theories is profound and far-reaching.

Mark McDonald, America’s Frontline Doctors, and some very troubling beliefs about autism

Aaron Rabinowitz
-
0
Mark McDonald, America’s Frontline Doctors, and some very troubling beliefs about autism

In my last article, I highlighted how the UK-centred anti-vaxxer movement went from never mentioning trans people at their conference to thoroughly incorporating the moral panic around queer theory at that same conference just a year later. As is weirdly normal for the conspiracism beat, a week before the article went live someone sent me a deeply unsurprising piece of the puzzle. Check out this picture of a recent anti-vaxxer event hosted by the pro-hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin activist group, America’s Frontline Doctors, above.

The event included the group’s founder, Simone Gold, who served most of a 60 day federal prison sentence for participating in the Jan 6th Capitol Hill Insurrection, and was headlined by Dr Robert Malone of Joe Rogan fame. Recognise anybody else? For your sake I hope not.

Enhance:

Yep, that’s James “Ok Groomer” Lindsay, the guy who should be famous for having predicted that globalists would murder five billion people over the past few years, standing right behind Dr Malone. In previous articles I’ve covered Lindsay’s connection to white Christian nationalist politics, his time spent in anti-vax sympathetic spaces like a party hosted by Donald Trump at Mar-A-Lago, and how he was cited as an expert at the most recent Better Way conference. As far as I know this is the first time he’s donned the performative white lab coat for an event such as this, and may be the first time he has ever worn one given that his doctorate is in mathematics and not medicine. So, when I saw there was a video of Lindsay on the America’s Frontline Doctors website, I thought this was going to be a follow-up article about how Lindsay was spreading his ideology into new spheres of conspiracism.

That is not what this article is about.

Lindsay, it turns out, is the least terrible part of the video, and that’s despite his brag at one point that he went to the airport knowing he had Covid and still only wore a mask when he was forced to. In the video, titled “The National and Human Psyche by Dr James Lindsay and Dr. Mark McDonald”, Lindsay sits down with Dr McDonald to talk about their shared hatred of the social justice left, and their experiences touring the country talking to folks about the twin horrors of wokeness and children with autism. To be clear, they aren’t decrying the struggles of achieving equity for children with autism, or even the deeply misguided attempts by anti-vaxxers to prevent autism by refusing vaccinations. Instead, as best as I can tell, their point is that autistic kids are terrible compared to properly raised kids, and that they’re what’s wrong with society. That’s what this article is about.

McDonald is a practicing psychiatrist and author of the book “United State of Fear: How America Fell Victim to a Mass Delusion”. In his book, McDonald claims we are suffering from a mass delusional psychosis “rooted in the natural anxieties of women on behalf of their children and families, inflamed and amplified by sensationalistic media, and driven over the top by hamfisted authoritarian measures from those in power”. This is your standard macho-masculine anti-lockdown rhetoric, glazed with psychological jargon.

In the discussion with Lindsay, McDonald blames society’s ills on “hyper-secularisation, meaning an attack on religion”. He does so while sitting next to someone who actively advocated for secularisation until very recently, and at no point do either of them express even an awareness of that fact, much less any cognitive dissonance about it. Their opening statement is just broad pearl clutching that:

what used to be virtuous, courage, sacrifice, family, religious belief, they’ve all become tainted… and been replaced with communalism; big government, self-sacrifice to the higher power meaning the government; narcissism, which is huge; emotional instability; hysteria; and selfishness.

There’s a lot to unpack here: the conservative anxiety about the loss of a fictional noble past, the fear of modern tyranny of the state over every aspect of life, and then the need to pathologise political opponents as insane to the point of being ethically dangerous.

McDonald critiques the left’s “attack on the family, meaning elevation of single parent households married to the government rather than two parent households married to the community and the land”. I always worry that my time studying antisemitic conspiracism has made me paranoid, but when I hear someone lamenting a fall from a fictional noble past and calling for a return to heteronormative families living in idyllic agrarian communities, I can’t help hearing a longwinded version of the Nazi call for “blood and soil”.

McDonald also describes Covid lockdowns as “raped humanitarianism” that succeeded because “the US we’re a kind open people… because we haven’t been through some of the horrid histories of other countries.” To which, I have to wonder which country he thinks has a worse history than a country built on violently stolen land, worked by violently enslaved peoples, that has violently perpetuated exploitative capitalism to the point of murdering both American activists and democratically-elected leaders of other countries. Maybe the British, or the countries that we have both exploited, I guess.

If McDonald had stuck to soft peddling the trad fash life and whining about atheists, I wouldn’t be writing about him. However, he goes on to claim that social media has “developed and encouraged the rise of an out-of-proportion degree of authority and presence of autistic people”. His reasoning is that society is now dominated by autistic people because they can run society online without having to engage in face-to-face interactions. He never comes back to this point, but it’s just so wild to hear it lumped in with boilerplate conservatism, I wanted it noted. Meanwhile, Lindsay just nods along to all of this like it is completely normal.

Adults with Autism are apparently not the only threat our society faces: children with autism are also the worst, according to McDonald. I’m not being hyperbolic, McDonald explicitly (at 0:17:57 in the video) explains that he and Lindsay:

were just talking about how the non-autistic children, the ones that are polite and respectful, that we run into as we travel the country, are always home schooled, always, they’re lovely, they’re not indoctrinated they’re just taught reality and common sense and good values and then they grow into their own.

To be clear, McDonald is explaining how all the nice, good children he meets are home schooled, implying that all the disrespectful children he met were either autistic, publicly schooled, or both. No mention of a differential outcome for autistic children who were home schooled, possibly because they don’t fit into McDonald’s worldview, or perhaps he doesn’t think they exist. It’s not like he explains his need to attack autistic children as a way to attack secularism; the sense I got is he seems to just find them genuinely unpleasant to be around. Lindsay hedges ever so slightly, but agrees that the internet:

took the normal filters off… and I don’t wanna necessarily say just autism, but any kind of social awkwardness or introversion upload onto social media very easily. It’s a borderline personality disorders playground.

No real pushback from a guy who pathologically needs to take his own advice and log off.

At this point, I had to learn more about McDonald, and I’d say it gets worse but I’m pretty sure there’s no farther down than shit-talking autistic kids, so let’s just say it just gets weirder. The Q and A starts with a question about when America started to struggle with fear of one’s neighbour. McDonald steps up first with a big swing at “tribalism”, which he claims has been happening since the 60s and 70s, explaining how “feminism is entirely a movement based on hate and the destruction of both femininity and masculinity, entirely,” before clarifying he only means post-war feminism, not the suffragettes – who, of course, were a movement famous for never questioning femininity or using violence against men to get results.

The undercurrent of anti-feminist and incel-adjacent language made me wonder, and a Google search turned up his 2022 Substack article “Why American Women are Undatable: Nobody wants to play with a porcupine”, where he echoes many of the things he discusses with Lindsay, especially “the utter decline of the presence and valuing of masculinity in the United States” lamenting that “we have a nation of Eunuchs”. When asked about the causes of the collapse of gender norms, he mumbles about “oestrogen in the water” before pointing out a more real problem that young men don’t know how to function as well as we might like in many social contexts.

they don’t know how to speak, how to talk, how to date, how to express their desires for a woman, for a job, for money, and this is the core of masculinity, and if you can’t do that, then you have opened up a chasm and vacuum into which hyper-feminity flourishes and hyper-feminity is just as unbalanced as hypermasculinity. You want all raping and violence, go all male, you want all histrionics and crying, go all female.

00:30:00

It seems true that people in general, and men in particular, are struggling with making connections in our modern world, but that seems more likely to be a product of the alienation of late-stage capitalism than the fact that men are no longer allowed to properly express their violently rapey nature in culturally-approved ways. The Substack is worth reading out loud for some amazing whinging about girls wearing over-sized unfeminine clothing, projecting “limitless entitlement”. Here’s just one gem in an emerald mine’s worth of horrifying treasures:

Women in this country have been taught that looks don’t matter, that career is more important than family, that men are either dangerous or weak and incapable, and that the world would be a better place if only women were in charge. Everything they are taught is wrong.

Bear in mind, this is the guy who said “you want all raping and violence, go all male”, so the signals are a bit mixed.

Sometimes I get hung up on needing a philosophical point to these articles, a deeper way to explain how McDonald’s anti-feminist, incel-adjacent rhetoric is tied in with his antivaxxerism and fetishising of trad conservative naturalism. Not this time. McDonald reminded me that sometimes our job is just to show the public what these conspiracy mongers sound like when they’re masks off around friends.

Agent Swift and sinking Tuvalu: Inventing fake conspiracy theories to teach critical thinking

Dave Hahn
-
0
Agent Swift and sinking Tuvalu: Inventing fake conspiracy theories to teach critical thinking

On 18 June 2023, a small five-person submarine was destroyed by the combined navies of the US, UK, and Russia to protect a secret undersea mining operation. In December of 2022, agents acting on behalf of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States (the Fed) met and compelled singer Taylor Swift to embark on the Eras tour to help repair US President Joe Biden’s economy. Currently, the nation of Australia is causing the nation of Tuvalu to sink beneath the sea so that its citizens would migrate to Australia. Actor Matthew Perry’s drowning death was an assassination to distract people from Israel’s war in Gaza. I’m sure you’ve heard the theory that we live in a computer simulation. That theory is clearly bunk, but what is true is that planet Earth is a setting for a reality show watched by a superior alien race.

None of these theories should sound familiar, unless they’re on Twitter, I don’t know – I took myself off Twitter so, someone could be pushing those specific theories. They all sound a little familiar in that they orbit other more popular theories, however, it’s very likely you’ve never heard those specific ideas, because they are the products of an assignment that I gave my students at the end of last semester.

In my regular life I am a college lecturer who teaches a course titled “Conspiracy Theories, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking.” The course isn’t a survey of popular conspiracy theories but part of my school’s requirement that first-year students learn how to write university-level papers. My goal in this course is to impart the skill of reasoning and correct research methodology to them. Conspiracy theories offer a great example of what not to do.

The reason that the course is not a mere survey is that, while interesting in an encyclopaedic sense, they do not help us understand how conspiracy theories work and why they are an overall detriment to society. Obviously, I cannot teach this kind of course without using a wide variety of examples, but the course isn’t about disproving the theories by picking them apart. We’ve discussed on this site that facts in isolation do not work to dissuade them.

As an example, I discuss the Illuminati in a lecture about “secret societies.” I explain that what started as an 18th century nerd club for Deists became the focal point for evil according to conspiracy theorists. I trace a line from Adam Weishaupt to David Icke, while explaining that each step required a new layer of incredulity. I point out that the bad reasoning could have been avoided if anyone (especially during the Satanic Panic of the 80s and 90s) had just stopped, looked around, and asked if any of this were even possible. I try to implement the slogan “reason with compassion” and instruct that even well meaning, intelligent people can fall into the trap of conspiracy theorising (I do not include grifters in this category).

A mural featuring a group of white men who are meant to appear as bankers sat at a Monopoly board that is resting on the backs of four muscular men of colour, who are sitting bent over with their heads between their knees. On the Monopoly board are several small pewter pieces like a boat and a statue of liberty and some green Monopoly houses. Behind the bankers is an Illuminati Eye of Providence pyramid flanked by power plants, giant gears, and both refuges and revolutionaries of colour. The mural has been defaced with the word “Haganah”, referring to a defunct Jewish paramilitary organisation
Image of the 2012 temporary London mural, ‘Freedom for Humanity‘ featuring the Illuminati ‘Eye of Providence’, by American artist Mear One, which was criticised for its use of anti-semitic tropes.

The best method of tackling the subject is not to address the problem after someone’s been exposed, but before. Inoculation is a much better option than treatment, and it’s easier to stop someone from getting sucked in than to drag them out. If a person knows the tactics of a conspiracy theorist prior to encountering one, it makes them less likely to fall into their trap. If you know what a “Bewilder Gambit” is you can hopefully see it happening and ask the person to explain all the “science-sounding words.” This won’t stop the theory, or convince the believer to abandon it, but it does help prevent people from believing it by providing a break between all the technobabble designed to give glassy-eyed listeners the impression of expertise. Inoculation against conspiracy theories is just like vaccination – it doesn’t make us 100% immune, but it does make it less likely that we catch the condition.

The traditional way to confer this vaccination would be to drill the students on things like informal fallacies (ie ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, begging the question, etc) What happens in that method, however, is that the students get a vocabulary lesson rather than a practical lesson for the future. Instead, the skill is to get the student to see the internal workings of a conspiracy theory. Arming the students with the facts and fallacies is an exercise in abstraction. Sure, they know the proper definition of “begging the question” (it does not mean “raises the question”) but knowing what it is and knowing how it operates in the confines of a book like Alex Jones’ The Great Reset are two entirely different things. Understanding that he (his ghost writer actually) sat down and made a self-referential argument, then pulled it out of context to make their theory seem valid, is more important than knowing the Wikipedia definition of it.

When one of my students has spent time pulling quotes out of context to make one of those strange theories (although the Swift one is no longer strange by comparison) or when they’ve take two unrelated events and woven them together in the most gossamer of connections, the hope is that they now understand that anyone can make a conspiracy theory, and so perhaps the seed of skepticism has been planted. As the American election season begins, they should know that when a certain news channel begins wall-to-wall coverage of a migrant caravan based on flimsy connections, they’ll see the pattern being used to push an emotion. Hopefully these specific students were able to use this lesson to spot the fake panic used when an unfortunate accident happened at the US-Canada border (also a few miles from my house). My hope is that they think to themselves, “Oh right, this is like when I made up the story about Tuvalu.”

Reading these assignments is where I learned about Oceangate and mining, Taylor Swift and the Federal Reserve Bank, Matthew Perry and the war, the sinking of Tuvalu, and Planet Earth: the Show. Those were the best submissions, but they were all pretty good except for one that just ripped off an existing theory about Hitler in South America. In some cases, like the one about Swift, the conspiracy theories were more plausible than ones pushed by “professionals.”

The original billboard sponsored by the Birds Aren’t Real movement that was erected in Memphis, Tennessee, with government surveillance drones sitting on top. Andrewj0131, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

I’ve been warned that there is some danger in this. The first risk is that by encouraging my students to create conspiracy theories, they will begin to spread theirs around. This is a problem that even my dissertation advisor was warned about when he gave a similar assignment to one of his classes. I don’t feel that this worry is legitimate. The hypothetical student would have to be very cynical and completely ignorant of the intent of the assignment.

The only true danger is that I have sent them into the conspiracy internet to find examples, and that exposes them to other conspiracy theories, one of which may hook them. I take this seriously enough that they are only given these assignments after I’ve spent a considerable amount of class time explaining how conspiracy theories work.

The purpose of the assignment is to “prebunk” or inoculate them against conspiracy theorising. There is research that suggests this method has some effectiveness concerning topics such as global warming. Typical prebunking is done by showing the conspiracy theories’ hand before they play the card. By taking the sting out of the reveal, the conspiracy theory loses its edge. Prebunking gets ahead of the conspiracy theory, which cannot grab the emotional hold if the audience already knows the punchline.

While some conspiracy theories will exploit already existing fears, anxieties, and hatreds, they do so by adding something new to it. The Flat Earth conspiracy petered out because, among other reasons (the Pandemic for one), they didn’t have much they could add to the theory.

Typical prebunking is about providing the factoids that make up the theory; my intent in this assignment is to prebunk the methods of conspiracy theorists. I want the skeleton to be unsurprising and bland, rather than the meat and blood of the theory. This is why the second part of the assignment is necessary—the student is required to explain how they constructed the theory. They have to walk through where, for example, they found the undersea mining “evidence”; the federal reserve agents, or the migration plan. This aspect of the assignment creates an awareness that I hope is translatable to the larger world so that when they see a new conspiracy theory hitting the same rhythm of their own, they’ll be aware that they should view this new explanation with skepticism.

So, while I’ve sent them into the underdark of the internet to find conspiracy theories, the hope is that they can learn the path enough to prevent them from getting hooked on a future conspiracy theory.

How to spot and avoid greenwashing and misleading eco claims

Eunji Jang
-
0
How to spot and avoid greenwashing and misleading eco claims

After ordering a ‘vegan’ leather bag online, I sleep soundly with a sense of pride. It’s because I feel like a wise and conscientious consumer who has chosen an eco-friendly product, instead of buying animal leather bags that harm the environment and animals. However, the fact is that some bags which claim to be ‘vegan’ are produced by mixing polyurethane or polyvinyl chloride to enhance durability – causing harm to the environment in doing so.

With the emergence of numerous companies claiming that their products are eco-friendly and ‘green’, consumers are now at a point where they need to distinguish between genuine environmental friendliness and fake claims. Marketing strategies employed by companies aim to capture the consumer’s attention, stimulate the desire to purchase, and ultimately ensure the sale of their products. In recent times, ‘eco-friendliness’ has become the most prevalent trend in marketing. Terms such as sustainability, eco-friendly, and vegan are commonly used in product promotion, aiming to increase consumer satisfaction with the product, but also to give them a sense of pride in being a conscientious consumer who considers the environment when purchasing eco-friendly products.

This is not to belittle those who seek sustainable consumption for the environment. The increasing awareness of the environment among consumers is undoubtedly a positive phenomenon. Considering the rising instances of climate issues and environmental pollution, public awareness of environmental problems is vital. Therefore, the importance of green marketing, in conjunction with companies taking actions to preserve the environment, is simultaneously growing. Through green marketing, companies can not only fulfil their environmental responsibilities but also enhance brand image, loyalty, and trust (Banyté et al, 2008).

However, there is a problem of exaggerating or falsely claiming the environmental friendliness of products to capture consumer interest, which is referred to as “greenwashing”. Greenwashing refers to cases where the representation or advertising of the environmental attributes or efficacy of products or services is false or exaggerated, aiming to gain economic benefits solely through the image of being environmentally friendly (Visser, 2013). The vegan leather bag is a perfect example.

A hand picking up a small white piece of paper with GOOD written on it, which is lying on a white surface next to another piece that says BAD.
Choosing the ‘GOOD’ over the ‘BAD’, nominally. Image via Ramdlon, Pixabay.

I spoke to Jane Park, a 25-year-old college student, who describes herself as having an interest in ethical consumption. She explained that when she was living alone, she would use compostable garbage bags made from corn extracts, which were advertised as being made from corn and could decompose like food waste. Later, she learned that while the bags were made from corn and were indeed compostable, they did not meet the criteria set by the Korean standards for food waste, which require decomposition within 90 days. As a result, they were categorized as regular waste, and thrown away with the rest of the rubbish. The experience left her feeling betrayed, but also with a sense of guilt for believing what was promoted without proper investigation.

This perfectly illustrates how greenwashing does not protect the environment, but rather pollutes it and confuses consumers about eco-friendly products, leading to distrust in environmentally responsible companies and markets. To truly engage in ethical consumption, consumers need trustworthy information.

To avoid greenwashing, it’s essential to understand the various types of greenwashing and make an effort to see through the superficial nature of certain words used in marketing that aim to deceive consumers. In 2009, the Canadian environmental marketing company TerraChoice released ‘The Seven Sins of Greenwashing’, which categorises different types.

“Sin of the Hidden Trade-off”

The hidden trade-off happens when a company emphasises certain environmentally-friendly attributes of a product while not disclosing its overall negative impact on the environment. For example, using recycled paper may seem eco-friendly and sustainable – however, the production process of recycled paper often involves harmful chlorine bleaching processes and it causes significant environmental harm. Similarly, Levi’s produced an eco-friendly denim line with methods aimed at reducing excessive water usage in the denim production process, claiming a 28-96% reduction in water usage compared to traditional denim production. However, as a high-volume denim producer, Levi’s, utilizes a wide range of processes, labour, and environmental resources, including dyeing, washing, finishing, and post-processing. Despite the water reduction, the net result is that Levi’s contributes to environmental pollution in its high-volume denim production, while selectively promoting certain eco-friendly practices and concealing the underlying environmental issues.

“Sin of No Proof”

Some products claim to be environmentally friendly, but provide a lack of specific information or evidence to support this claim. For example, H&M’s eco-friendly line, the “Conscious Collection,” is marketed as using sustainable materials. “Conscious Collection” is distinguishable by a green or green-lettered tag, unlike the traditional H&M brand’s white tag. However, H&M does not provide sufficient justification about the reason for this labelling, or accurate details about the proportion of recycled materials used. According to a report by the non-profit organisation Changing Markets Foundation, the Conscious Collection was found to contain more harmful synthetic materials than traditional H&M clothing.

“Sin of Vagueness”

The sin of vagueness describes advertising phrases that promote a product’s environmental friendliness, but are so broad that it is difficult for consumers to make a clear judgment. For example, using prefixes like “chemical-free,” “all-natural ingredients,” or “non-toxic” without providing additional explanations misleads consumers. Arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are all 100% naturally occurring, yet they are toxic; simply being natural doesn’t mean something is healthy, or that it possesses “green” characteristics.

“Sin of Irrelevance”

Some greenwashing claims are effectively a distraction – where consumers are provided with information that is unrelated and irrelevant to environmental protection and sustainability. For example, subtly disguising a product as eco-friendly by emphasizing the absence of certain additives, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which have already been banned internationally to combat ozone layer depletion. This creates information asymmetry between suppliers and consumers. Misled consumers consider the product environmentally friendly, yet the absence of such additives is unrelated to its environmental impact.

“Sin of Fibbing”

Occasionally, outright deceit is at play, with companies falsifying product ingredients, or using unaccredited environmental certification marks or slogans in product advertising or promotion. This creates the illusion of endorsement by a reputable organisation. Adidas have their own “End Plastic Waste” slogan and Earth-shaped logo, which emphasizes an eco-friendly message, but it risks confusing consumers into thinking the product has received certification from a credible institution, rather than being a marker of an initiative wholly operated by Adidas. Furthermore, despite strong language like “End Plastic Waste”, only a portion of a product is made from recycled materials. The phrase makes the product appear as if it is entirely made from recycled plastic material, implying a positive impact on the environment. However, when shoes made from recycled plastic reach the end of their lifespan, they become plastic waste once again, with no commitment by Adidas to recycle them, ultimately contributing to environmental pollution. Therefore, it’s not valid to claim that purchasing Adidas shoes is a means to end plastic waste.

“Sin of Lesser of Two Evils”

By advertising the environmentally-friendly aspects of a product, a company can seek to distinguish it from competitors – even when the product itself is unavoidably harmful and detrimental to the environment. Examples include organic cigarettes, fuel-efficient sports cars and SUVs, and even some “eco-friendly pesticides”.

“Sin of Worshipping False Labels”

The sin of worshipping false labels involves the use of images that resemble official eco-friendly schemes and certifications, in an effort to confuse the consumer. For example, portraying products as if they have met international standards or legal requirements for sustainability, when in actuality their only accreditation is by less credible – or outright counterfeit – organisations, while the product itself does not conform to rigorous environmental product standards.

How to avoid greenwashing

While the responsibility for avoiding greenwashing absolutely falls on the companies and advertising agencies who market products to consumers, there are still steps we can take to be informed customers, to prioritise the environment while avoiding being deceived by greenwashing.

Firstly, it is important to seek tangible proof and consider the holistic environmental impact in making eco-friendly choices (Kwak, 2022). When it comes to eco-friendly claims, it’s essential not to simply believe slogans or vague terms like ‘eco-friendly’, ‘green’, or ‘natural’ when shopping. Instead, make an effort to find concrete evidence that supports the claim. Consider not only the packaging and outward appearance, but also the product’s entire life cycle, including post-use disposal processes. Furthermore, be aware of the overall impact that the product or service can have on the environment.

Additionally, consumers may not be as knowledgeable as businesses in this regard. Therefore, even if consumers explore information thoroughly and make thoughtful choices, it can still be challenging to avoid intentional deception by companies. Hence, due to information asymmetry and other factors, it’s important to take appropriate action in response to a wrong purchase decision before more victims are affected (Song, 2011). Consumers who succeed in avoiding falling for various types of greenwashing need to help other consumers do the same by revealing the truth about greenwashing.

Some may argue that greenwashing is not a significant issue. They might think that promoting the eco-friendliness of a product in advertisements is simply evidence of the company’s effective marketing strategy if consumers choose to purchase it. Furthermore, for those who are not environmentally conscious, the fact that the advertising for a product exaggerates its eco-friendliness may not be of great importance.

However, greenwashing is more than just marketing. Consumers need to be aware of the issues surrounding greenwashing and work to prevent its spread. Greenwashing exploits the good intentions of consumers who want to contribute to the environment, using it as an easy way to gain profits. Furthermore, it disregards the original intentions of consumers and erases the efforts of other companies genuinely striving for sustainable production. Consumers deceived by greenwashing may feel betrayed and develop mistrust towards eco-friendly products, sustainable practices, and corporate responsibility for sustainable production.

The eco-friendliness of a product is just one among many features. If a company highlights it prominently in its advertising, it becomes a representative characteristic of that product. However, if the claim of eco-friendliness is false, it raises questions about the reliability of the product’s other secondary features. Companies that engage in deception are likely to do so on multiple fronts. It is essential to be vigilant against greenwashing, which deceives both consumers and the environment.

Further reading

  • Banytė, J., & Gadeikienė, A. (2008). Corporate social responsibility as a marketing means in Lithuanian business practice. Economics and Management, 13, 227-238.
  • Kwak, H. (2022). How do consumers’ perceptions of brands change? Investigating a fashion brand’s green marketing, authenticity, and purchase intention in the context of greenwashing. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture, 30(2), 189-207
  • Song, E. (2011). Consumers` Purchase Behavior Intention after the Greenwashing Perception. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER STUDIES, 22(1), 315-339.
  • Visser, W,. (2013). CSR 2.0: Transforming Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, Springer, 13.

“Trillions of humans”: is Elon Musk right about population size?

Gabriel Andrade
-
0
“Trillions of humans”: is Elon Musk right about population size?

You might be forgiven for thinking that rich white men have a penchant for saying outrageous things when it comes to demography. For example, the late Prince Philip once said that if he were reincarnated, he “would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.”

Not to be outdone, Elon Musk has gone to the other extreme, and frequently quips that “population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming”; in his view, it would be nice if there were trillions of humans.

Demographers have long debunked Musk’s alarmism. But even admitting that we are nowhere near population collapse, wouldn’t it indeed be nice to have trillions of humans? Most people would probably be neutral regarding this question. As per this view, assuming that our standard of living remains the same, adding people to the world does not make it better or worse.

But what if we add, as a thought experiment, babies born with terminal, painful diseases, whose lives are likely to be very short and dominated by suffering? In that case, most people would probably agree that it would be a bad idea, and therefore that the world would be worsened if those lives were added to the population. Yet shouldn’t there be symmetry in our approach to adding people? If it is bad to add some lives, wouldn’t it be good to add people with lives worth living?

Some people might refuse to accept that symmetry. In their view, if we bring to existence people with lives we collectively deem not worth living, we are causing them harm. But if we fail to bring to existence people with lives we would consider worth living, we are not causing any harm, precisely because there is no existing person that has been grieved.

This view seems reasonable, provided we assume that actions are bad only if they harm someone. But there may still be actions that are wrong, even if nobody has been harmed. If a person is not allowed to board a plane because of their race, and that plane crashes, that person would come to recognize that such an act of discrimination saved their life (and therefore they were not harmed), but the deed is still wrong. Consequently, we may not properly harm the trillions of people that we fail to bring to existence, but not bringing about their existence may still be bad.

In fact, if we reflect further, it seems that we would not be neutral about adding people with lives we collectively deem worth living. Under the assumption of neutrality, it would be the same if a couple had a child or not. Yet, we would certainly prefer that child to have a fully satisfactory life, instead of a half-satisfactory life but still worth living. If we were really neutral, either option would be the same (full satisfaction vs. half satisfaction), since adding lives worth living does not make the world a better place. But for us, the first option is clearly preferable. That implies we are not neutral about adding people. More is better; trillions of humans are a good thing.

But with trillions of humans, wouldn’t life be horrible for all of us? As Malthus famously warned, overpopulation is bound to cause war, famine, pestilence and disease – presumably, this was Prince Philip’s concern. Surely if we stay on Earth – populating the galaxy would be another matter – a population of trillions would make our lives miserable, probably to the point of not worth living. But what if we maximize population size – say, tens of billions – therefore decreasing our quality of life, but not to the point of having lives not worth living? Suppose we have a humongous population size with lives barely worth living. In that case, wouldn’t more be better?

Malthusian population theory – as population growth exceeds ability to produce food, there comes a crisis point, the ‘Malthusian catastrophe’. Source: Wikimedia commons

Most people would find this prospect worrisome, and indeed, many philosophers have called it ‘repugnant’. But it has a disturbing logic of its own. When it comes to happiness, it seems the total number is a better measure than the average number.

Consider this example to see why. Suppose you are a teacher, and you will take 20 students on a field trip on Thursday. On Monday, the school principal budgets £10 for each student. Your total budget is therefore £200. On Tuesday, the principal has a change of plans, and now wants to add 20 more students, and for those new students, the budget will be £5 per person; the new 20 students will not have as much fun as the original 20 students, but they will still enjoy the field trip. The total budget now will therefore be £300. Is that a good deal? Yes, it is, as the original 20 students have not been harmed, the new 20 students will be happy to go on the field trip, and the budget has increased.

The principal does not like inequality, so on Wednesday he proposes to distribute the budget evenly across all students, and he will add £50 more to the budget. The budget would therefore be £350, and each student would have £8.75. Is that a good deal? Again, yes, it is, as the situation is now more just than it was on Tuesday, and the budget is even larger. So ultimately, the plan proposed on Wednesday is better than the one proposed on Tuesday, and the plan proposed on Tuesday is better than the one proposed on Monday. Consequently, the plan proposed on Wednesday is better than the one proposed on Monday.

As compared to the plan proposed on Monday, the one proposed on Wednesday increased both the number of students going on the field trip, and the total budget. From Monday to Wednesday, the average budget per student decreased (from £10 to £8.75), but we don’t seem to care about that, to the extent that we consider the Wednesday plan better than the Monday plan. It then seems that total measures are better than average measures.

Let us now return to world population size. Is a population of 1 billion people, and happiness level 50 each, better than a population of 100 billion people and happiness level 1 each (but with lives still worth living)? The reasoning above suggests that, to the extent that total measures are preferable to average measures, 100 billion units of happiness are better than 50 billion units. If we followed average measures, then in a world with 1 billion people and happiness level 50 each, it would be better to add one person with a horrible life (to the point of being not worth living), than to add 1 billion people with happiness level 45 each, as adding that person with a horrible life would only have a negligible effect on average happiness. This is absurd, and it seemingly proves that ultimately, total measures are what counts.

Shall we therefore follow Elon Musk’s directive to have as many babies as we can? Not necessarily. The prospect of trillions of humans with lives barely worth living does seem depressing, and I, for one, refuse to give in to it. Yet, there is no easy way out of that logic. Derek Parfit – the philosopher who first considered these dilemmas – hoped for decades to find a solution to the conundrum of population size; he never succeeded.

For now, what may be most needed is an acknowledgement that demography, in and of itself, is not enough to get around this problem. Philosophical reflection must also play a part. Elon Musk may be easily refuted when it comes to factual demographic assertions, but the worldview underlying his outrageous claims must be taken seriously. Never forget that for skeptics, philosophy matters.

Dragons’ Den has a quackery problem that goes far beyond ear seeds

Michael Marshall
-
0
Dragons’ Den has a quackery problem that goes far beyond ear seeds

The BBC One reality show Dragons Den has been making headlines for all the wrong reasons in the last couple of weeks. For those unfamiliar with the format, in each episode, several business owners pitch their products to a bunch of rich folk – or “dragons” – to be scrutinised and critiqued, with the hope of securing an investment, and an experienced (and, notably, famous) business partner.

Putting your business idea to people who are rich and willing to invest in businesses in return for primetime exposure on BBC One isn’t a bad concept, depending on what is being pitched… which is where things recently went awry, when former advertising executive turned entrepreneur, Giselle Boxer, entered the Den to pitch her business: Acu Seed ear seeds. As we’ve covered elsewhere, ear seeds are ornamental at best, and promoting them as a treatment for ME/cfs – even if the health claims on the show were carefully crafted to avoid being too explicit – promotes useless quackery to a cohort of patients who are, by definition, deprived of viable and proven alternatives.

A still from the show - Giselle Boxer stands next to a bookshelf with her products displayed on them in the Dragon's Den.

While the on-air claims were just about sanitised enough to give the programme the fig leaf of plausible deniability, the claims Acu Seeds makes elsewhere are less covert. At the time of writing, their website claims their products can treat all manner of conditions, including “anxiety, migraines, hormonal issues, insomnia, weight loss and more,” while their customer testimonials boast about how ear seeds made a two-week migraine go away “in seconds”, were “an amazing tool for sleep, mood swings, anxiety and panic attacks,” and how for one customer the product was “a lifesaver for chronic pain and fatigue!”.

The website’s blog goes on to claim that ear seeds can ease post-workout muscle tension, support recovery, boost energy levels, help with hormonal balance during postpartum depression, improve focus and emotional regulation for people with ADHD, ease painful periods, improve immunity, and help with fertility issues. The company even goes as far as to sell – not give away, but sell – a “Women’s Health Guide“, which:

shows you how and where to place ear seeds for:
– menstrual issues
– libido
– fertility
– postpartum healing
– postpartum depression
– menopause
– anti-inflammatory
– weight loss.

None of this, of course, is supported by any evidence at all – a point upon which the Advertising Standards Authority agreed. In response to a complaint I submitted on Friday 19th January, I was told:

“Your complaint raises an issue which we know is likely to be a clear problem under the rules. In those circumstances, the Compliance team has all the information it needs and will work directly with the advertiser to bring about compliance. If the advertiser does not comply, the Compliance team can apply sanctions, and may ultimately refer the matter to our legal backstop, Trading Standards.”

The claims made by Acu Seed were so patently misleading that they required no further investigation by the ASA – which invites the question, how did the BBC manage to overlook such clear indications of quackery? It is a question I asked of the BBC, in a complaint I submitted after the show aired (one of many complaints, it transpires). In response, I was told:

“Dragons’ Den is an entertainment programme which features products created by entrepreneurs but is not an endorsement of them… This episode featured an entrepreneur sharing her own personal experiences that had led to the creation of a business. Her pitch asked for funding to expand her business selling ear seed kits, which she described as “an ancient Chinese medicine tool based on the principles of acupuncture, but without the needles”. The programme fairly reflected the Dragons’ responses on the day.”

I’m not wholly sure what issue the BBC feels this is addressing – the accusation wasn’t that criticism by the dragons was edited out; it was that the kind of criticism and due diligence that is the duty of the BBC to perform was entirely absent. The response continued:

“Viewers heard her explain her use of diet, acupuncture, Chinese herbs and ear seeds as part of her “personal healing journey” following an ME diagnosis. She stated that “this combination, I believe, aided my recovery within 12 months”. The ear seeds were never described as a cure for ME.”

This, too – deliberately or otherwise – misses the point, and I don’t imagine it is the BBC’s position that ME/cfs can be cured with an alternative medicine regime of which ear seeds play one part. Acupuncture, Chinese herbs and diet are as ineffectual a treatment for ME/cfs as ear seeds are – the issue, clearly, is that nobody in the making of the show felt it was their duty to highlight this. It concluded:

“Dragons’ Den does not, and has never, set out to offer medical advice and we believe its audience understands this. However in light of some concerns raised we have added the following clarification to the programme:

Acu Seeds are not intended as a cure for any medical condition and advice should always be sought from a qualified healthcare provider about any health concerns.“

Indeed, the warning has been added to the show, once it was re-edited and re-released on the BBC iPlayer.

A still from the show with the disclaimer added (disclaimer is described in main text)

It should be fairly apparent that this response is wholly inadequate. If the audience genuinely did understand that none of the medical claims made in the show were meant to be taken as medical advice, ME/cfs patients across the country wouldn’t be reporting that friends and family have been recommending ear seeds as a treatment for their condition, and the Acu Seeds website would not have had to issue a notice informing potential customers that the show has caused such a surge in demand as to leave them out of stock:

A screen shot from the Acu Seeds site with the text "we have sold out"

The rest of the BBC’s response is equally unconvincing – especially to suggest that an endorsement of the business by all six stars of Dragons’ Den should not be seen as an endorsement of the product. In the episode, Sara Davies raves “this product is brilliant,” explaining that she “gets ear seeds all the time” – but somehow, the viewer is meant to consider that something other than an endorsement. Indeed, each of the dragons complimented Gisele and her business, and everyone on the show felt that the business was deserving of an offer of their own money as investment capital – in what world is that not meant to be taken as a sign that the product and the business is credible? And if that does not constitute an endorsement, what possibly could?

This is not yet the end of this story, and I will continue to follow up with the BBC – in fact, I wrote an open letter to the Director General and the Standards Director, because I think there’s a bigger picture that risks getting missed with all of the (understandable and justified) focus on Acu Seeds: this is not the only time that Dragons’ Den have showcased alternative health businesses and inaccurate health claims, with no pushback from any of the shows stars.

Faux power cacao

As Gisele Boxer, founder of Acu Seeds, left the studio, investment secure from Stephen Bartlett, she may have crossed paths with the very next business owner to vie for the Dragons’ metaphorical gold: Liam Browne, of Full Power Cacao. Liam told the Dragons that after a complicated life, he had become “suicidally depressed”, and decided to embark upon a healing journey – which is when he encountered ceremonial grade cacao, and the healing properties he believes it possesses.

Adding colour to his pitch – this is prime-time television, after all – he had the Dragons chant a healing song over his own-brand chocolate drink, which he explained would increase the vibrational energy of the drink. Only Peter Jones seemed unconvinced by this, and as the pitch went on, not one of the Dragons’ seemed aware that hot chocolate does not have any healing properties, regardless of how many songs you sing to it.

A still from the show with Liam Browne of Full Power Cacao banging a drum

Liam walked away on the with investment from Steven Bartlett, Gary Neville, and the no-longer-skeptical Peter Jones. Of the three, Neville seemed most excited about being able to give a leg-up to a fellow Mancunian (in itself, no bad thing), and the two Northerners went on to promote their new partnership on BBC Breakfast – a second high-profile and lucrative spot from which this commercial business could advertise their pseudoscientific product on the BBC.

On their website, Full Power Cacao claims there is scientific evidence to support the notion that cacao drinkers are less depressed – or, as they word it on the site, cacao “stops you feeling stressed and depressed”. The study they cite was carried out by Dr Sarah Jackson at University College London, who I contacted to ask how she feels about her research being used this way. She told me:

This study was purely correlational and reported an association between dark chocolate consumption and odds of depressive symptoms (nothing about ceremonial grade cacao or vibrational energy!). As we state in the abstract, we can’t draw any firm conclusions about whether this association is causal: ‘Further research capturing long-term chocolate consumption and using a longitudinal design are required to confirm these findings and clarify the direction of causation.’ Any such claims on the basis of this evidence are unfounded.

This makes sense – the study looked at reported levels of depression and reported levels of  chocolate consumption, but at no point did it claim that depression and chocolate consumption had any causal relationship.

Again, we are to assume that the appearance on dragons’ den and the investment from the dragons is not an endorsement of Full Power Cacao… yet, on the company’s website, Liam makes clear that following his appearance on the show, he took two years’ worth of orders in just two days. The website prominently advertises their “Dragon’s Den Deal”, where you can get 22% off if you fill in their form.

The business evidently knows that appearing on a flagship BBC One entertainment programme and being seen by nearly four million viewers has a hugely positive effect on their bottom line. The appearance – and especially an appearance that ends with investment – is effectively a huge advert, in one of the most watched slots on the most credible broadcast channel in the country, if not the world.

Crystal gall

Dragons’ Den’s proclivity for quackery is not limited to this latest series. In January 2023, the show aired an episode in which the founders of Psychic Sisters pitched to the Dragons their range of healing crystals, and what incredible health benefits they can have. At various points, the Dragons told them: “You should be immensely proud” and “You are very impressive in what you have achieved in the short space of time you have. I would genuinely love to be a part of your world” and “I think Psychic Sisters is genius… you’ve actually turned it into something that’s quite cool”. They walked away with investment from Sara Davies and Deborah Meaden.

A still from the show with Pyschic Sisters standing beside a table with their products on it

Not mentioned during their appearance was the fact that as part of their business, Psychic Sisters will also predict your future for £150, sell charms to “ward off the evil eye” and dispel malevolent curses, and offer a crystal “egg” to be worn inside the vagina to “aid muscle recovery” and “cleanse and purify the blood”.

Shortly after the episode aired, and prompted by my complaint to the ASA, Psychic Sisters updated their website to remove some of the more explicit health claims – evidence that they were unambiguously in breach of advertising regulations at the time that they were selected to be broadcast to four million households by the BBC’s premier channel.

According to a response I received from the BBC, it was reasonable to feature the company, because Psychic Sisters had already “launched their products on Asos, BooHoo and Holland & Barrett, so there appears to be a market for the products”. This is obviously irrelevant, because my issue was not that the business lacked sufficient demand, but that many of the products the business sold were ineffective and misleading. The BBC, it’s fair to say, has a responsibility to maintain standards that Holland & Barrett does not. BooHoo is not a public service broadcaster, and the fact that ASOS made what amounts to an error of judgement does not absolve the BBC of following suit.

The BBC also told me:

“It was stated that the online marketing wasn’t up to scratch and Peter asked specifically about how much funds they’re raising, and he pulled out when she couldn’t give him an answer. The programme didn’t claim that any of their claimed psychic abilities or clairvoyance were factual.”

Once again, this feels rather like an attempt to side-step the issue. The concerns raised by the Dragons about online marketing were that the business was too reliant on third party retailers, made too little money from direct sales, and had too small a social media footprint – none of which address the more important point that the very nature of the Psychic Sisters business is to sell pseudoscientific products. Healing crystals, charms to dispel curses, and predictions about the future are not based in evidence, and no increase in Instagram followers could alter that fact. Yet viewers of the episode would have been left with the impression that this was a business whose only issue was a faulty sales pipeline, and an inability to cite profit margins on demand.

Chasten the dragon

It is abundantly clear that not enough is being done by the producers of Dragons’ Den to uphold the standards of the BBC, and to safeguard the trust its audience has for one of the most respected broadcasting institutions in the world. That trust has been hard won, and it is galling to see it being lent to businesses that promote misleading and potentially even dangerous products, via health claims that target specific and vulnerable patient groups.

It’s hard to know quite where things are going wrong – whether the producers of the show are incapable of undertaking the basic research needed to weed out pseudoscientific businesses, or whether they simply do not care. It may be the case that they feel it is not their problem, and that all that matters is that the business idea makes for good TV, especially if it has a quirky angle or if the founders have a sad personal story they can hook their pitch around. I strongly disagree, and I can only hope the outcry from ME/cfs patients after this latest debacle has brought this issue into sharper focus for them.

Where prospective businesses make health claims or scientific claims, Dragons’ Den’s producers have a duty to check with experts to asses whether these claims are based in evidence – and if they are not, those businesses have no right to airtime and free advertising on the country’s leading and most respected broadcaster. No business should be lent the reach and legitimacy of the BBC in order to make misleading and potentially dangerous health claims for the products and services they sell.

Earthquake conspiracy theories flourished in the wake of last year’s disaster in Turkey

Serdar Basegmez
-
0
Earthquake conspiracy theories flourished in the wake of last year’s disaster in Turkey

Only a few hours after we hastily left our small flat in Istanbul during the 1999 İzmit earthquake, we found ourselves caught up in the communal gossip about the aftermath. “A whole apartment building collapsed just a few streets away!” one of our neighbours exclaimed. “A child was injured by falling debris from a church wall,” another added. Distressing stories, but I wasn’t aware of any noise, or even a dust cloud surrounding our peaceful neighbourhood. We were in a relatively safer district of the city.

When I asked which church, deep down, I knew they meant the Armenian church at the end of our street, just a few doors away. Hearing those exaggerated stories, I just didn’t have the energy to correct them and point out that the Armenian church’s tall walls were actually still standing, clear for anyone to see if they just took a moment to look.

These tales circulating on the streets in Istanbul were just that – tales. A garden wall had a crack, and a few bricks had fallen here and there, but no buildings had collapsed, and no one had been injured in our vicinity. It seemed like the stories had spiralled into exaggerated versions of themselves after just a few retellings. This tendency was perhaps not just a human way to deal with the unpredictable forces of nature, but also a means to give voice to our deeper fears and uncertainties.

This was well before we started using the term the ‘post-truth’ era – a tongue-in-cheek name for our time, where emotions and personal beliefs often overshadow objective facts in shaping public opinion. Fact-checking organisations are now instrumental in analysing information flow and engaging fake news, contributing significantly to tackling misinformation, but misinformation can still evolve into elaborate conspiracy theories during times of crisis.

Whenever we explore issues like this, it’s crucial to remember that we need to approach this topic with empathy. Earthquakes are not just ordinary natural disasters; they are personal tragedies, bringing immense pain and loss to those directly affected. People lose their loved ones, their homes, their way of life, and often their mental well-being. Even for those watching events unfold on social media from a distance, it’s an extremely difficult experience. As we explore these phenomena, our aim is not to assign blame or ridicule those who believed rumours in such trying times. Instead, our focus is on understanding the dynamics of misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories, which, if unchecked, can cause substantial harm to society.

Societal Trauma

Earthquakes represent profound traumas for affected societies, disrupting lives and fostering a sense of deep uncertainty and loss of control. As an example, the 1999 Izmit earthquake was a major disaster for my generation, hitting one of Turkey’s most populous areas with unprecedented force. Those who rushed into the disaster zone to offer help were met with heart-breaking scenes of devastation. Meanwhile, others experienced the tragedy through the media, which painted vivid, heart-wrenching pictures of loss and ruin.

Fast forward to 2023, when an even more devastating earthquake struck southeastern Turkey and northwest Syria, not once, but twice. At its epicentre and in Antakya, the initial quake registered an extreme intensity of XII – the highest on the Mercalli scale. Today, the official death toll stands at nearly 60,000, with over 121,000 injured across both regions. This time, the catastrophe unfolded under the full gaze of social media. Twitter became the primary source of information between the global audience and the disaster zone. Yet, the selective lens of social media often spotlighted the disaster’s most sensational news, inadvertently leading to the circulation of unverified information.

The 2023 earthquake had a markedly different impact on those far from the epicentre compared to the 1999 quake. Back then, Istanbul experienced tremors, but suffered less damage than other areas. It was clear at that time that Istanbul was not immune to earthquakes, with experts cautioning that a significant disaster could hit the city within the next 30 years. The 2023 earthquake served as a stark reminder of Istanbul’s continued vulnerability and lack of preparedness for such events.

In such times, people often feel compelled by uncertainty and a sense of losing control to connect disparate pieces of information, engaging in rumours and conspiracies as a way to relieve emotional distress. Events are often attributed to the deliberate actions of hostile groups, or fears arise that the worst scenarios are unfolding. In other words, while the crisis itself may serve as a catalyst for misinformation, it ultimately falls to political ideologies to shape the narratives, pinpoint the villains, and establish the alleged sinister purposes.

Ideologies and the Disaster Narratives

These moments of crisis in history, such as the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, invariably give rise to their own conspiratorial narratives on different scales. Although initial reactions to these events usually don’t revolve around crafting sinister plots, misinformation and disinformation quickly surge to the forefront. One example of this is the fake news stories about people collapsing in the streets of China during the early days of the pandemic.

Earthquakes are no exception, with misinformation spreading in the initial days and evolving into various narratives as time goes on. According to Journo’s analysis, this phenomenon isn’t new, extending back to before the last century. The 1894 Istanbul earthquake, for instance, also stirred the political environment with conspiracy theories, fake news incidents, and political manoeuvres by Sultan Abdulhamid of the Ottoman Empire. Such disaster narratives have similarly influenced the partisan responses to recent earthquakes, too.

A newspaper clipping with, in Turkish, the headline: "A Disrespect to 20,000 Lives". In the accompanying photo, a woman holds up a red placard with the numbers 7.4 written on, asking "Wasn't 7.4 enough?" during headscarf protests outside a university. (Source: Hürriyet)
News headline: “A Disrespect to 20,000 Lives”; refers to the controversial “Wasn’t 7.4 enough?” poster displayed during headscarf protests outside a university. (Source: Hürriyet)

The 1999 Izmit Earthquake, which devastated a naval base in Gölcük at the disaster’s epicentre, tragically claimed the lives of 200 sailors, including the Naval Academy’s Commander. Amid the politically-charged atmosphere of the time, some Islamists, then in opposition, interpreted the earthquake as ‘divine retribution against secularism’, a view influenced by some religious narratives depicting earthquakes as ‘divine punishments for wrongdoing’. This stance was starkly remembered by an Islamist woman protester who brandished a cruel poster proclaiming: ‘Wasn’t 7.4 enough?’

However, the Islamists in power during the 2023 earthquake mostly avoided the ‘divine punishment’ interpretation. On the contrary, one of the AKP government’s initial responses was to create a Twitter account named ‘The Disaster of the Century’ (Asrın Felaketi). This account quickly became central to their strategy, framing the earthquake as an inevitable calamity. While the account was shut down due to considerable social media backlash, the narrative persisted through other channels. Concurrently, government-backed media outlets dedicated considerable effort to debunking conspiracy theories related to the earthquake and attributed the spread of misinformation to ‘others’.

A Twitter screenshot of a Turkish Government Twitter account, which they swiftly rebranded after initially launching it as 'The Disaster of the Century'. (Source)
The Turkish Government swiftly rebranded a purchased Twitter account to promote the ‘The Disaster of the Century’ narrative, only to remove it following public backlash. (Source)

Anti-Western and antisemitic perspectives frequently surface in the context of earthquakes. The Sèvres Syndrome represents a deep-seated mistrust of the West and non-Muslim minorities across political traditions and Israel often labeled as an arch-enemy, particularly for traditional Islamists. Additionally, contemporary political issues, such as those involving Syrian refugees, have unfortunately placed the immigrant population in the crosshairs, despite many being victims of the recent earthquake themselves. In every case, ideologically-driven conspiracy theories across the political spectrum share a common theme: attributing events to covert operations by influential forces. ‘Others’ are consistently depicted as either complicit with or actively participating in these schemes. The HAARP project serves as a prime example of this theme, which, indifferent to various political affiliations, has been resurrected after every major earthquake since 1999.

HAARP Conspiracies: A Not-So-Twisted Tale

The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is a facility dedicated to the study of the ionosphere, the uppermost, ionized section of Earth’s atmosphere. Originally funded largely by the US Air Force, the US Navy, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the program was established to analyse the ionosphere and explore the potential for creating ionospheric enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance. Over time, however, the military’s interest waned, and the program was ultimately handed over to the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

The HAARP antenna array - a vast sea of antennae stretching far into the distance, surrounded by barbed wire fence.
HAARP antenna array: The sheer number of antennas is surely enough to spark significant electromagnetic anxiety among the general public. (Source)

In the realm of conspiracy theories, HAARP certainly holds a prominent place. As American journalist Sharon Weinberger aptly put it, HAARP is the “Moby Dick” of conspiracy theories. Perhaps this pervasive fascination is fuelled by a general technophobia towards all things electromagnetic, magnified by images of HAARP’s vast antenna array. These pictures, sometimes accompanied by the addition of an irrelevant radar dome platform and obscured references to “some extraordinary technology that Tesla invented”, feed into claims that HAARP is a tool for mind control, geo-engineering, and even triggering earthquakes.

HAARP is often implicated as the cause behind many earthquakes in Turkey, including the 1999 Izmit Earthquake. A chief proponent of this theory is Melih Gokcek, a well-known conspiracy theorist and former mayor of Ankara, who asserts that HAARP is a secret earthquake-inducing weapon being tested by the US. As outlined in Doğruluk Payı, he argues that the US chose the North Anatolian Fault Zone as a testing ground due to its similarities with the San Andreas Fault. Their supposed aim was to alleviate the tension in the fault zone, thus reducing the risk of a major quake. Intriguingly, he posits that the US contracted this dubious operation to Israel, which purportedly harboured its own geopolitical interests over Turkey. As the conspiracy narrative goes, the plan went off track, necessitating a cover-up, which manifested as a complete blackout in the earthquake zone.

A photo of a sea-based X-band Radar platform entering Pearl Harbor on the MV Blue Marlin. It is a large white dome on the back of a very large ship. The dome is often misattributed to the HAARP project.
Photo of a radar dome often misattributed to HAARP. (Source)

This conspiracy narrative isn’t exclusive to Turkey. It has surfaced in the wake of various seismic events across the globe, including the earthquakes in Haiti and Christchurch in 2010. Although the storyline varies somewhat depending on the specific incident, the central idea remains consistent and has proven remarkably resilient to many debunking efforts. At times, it’s presented as an experiment gone wrong; in other instances, it’s purported to be part of a calculated plan of invasion or retaliation. For example, in the aftermath of the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake, certain conspiracy theories amplified by social media bots suggested that NATO was using HAARP to punish Turkey for impeding Finland’s and Sweden’s bids to join the alliance.

The Modern Twist on Invasion Paranoia

Whenever a conspiracy theory suggests that an earthquake is man-made, it invariably implies a motive for such sinister forces at play. Frequently, this motive comes wrapped in an all-too-familiar paranoia: invasion. This mindset has permeated various factions in Turkish politics, as we’ve seen in previous examples. Post-2000, fears of a U.S. invasion have become an integral part of the leftist-nationalist narrative in Turkey.

One often-cited “proof” of this impending invasion is the 2002 Millenium Challenge war game exercise conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces. The MC02 was a colossal and expensive war game in which the U.S., represented by the colour blue, was pitted against an enemy represented by the colour red. Conspiracy theorists maintain that the war game scenario involves a Middle Eastern country that suffers a catastrophic earthquake, resulting in a failure to maintain societal order. The U.S. Armed Forces then allegedly invaded the country to restore peace and reintroduce democracy.

While such a narrative isn’t entirely inconceivable, the truth deviates somewhat from this tale. In the real MC02 scenario, the ‘red country’ represents Iraq or Iran. The exercise, in reality, was unrelated to Turkey, and it took a controversial turn when it was unexpectedly halted due to the ‘blue forces’ experiencing heavy losses. Far from being a covert operation, MC02 has been the subject of widespread discussion and criticism within the US public sphere.

The notion of a U.S. invasion frequently circulates within anti-American conspiracy culture in Turkey, often referred to as either the implementation of a ‘Fifth Column’, an outright military invasion, or even engineering Turkish politics. When the U.S. deployed the supercarrier USS George H.W. Bush to the region to assist Turkey in the recent earthquake, this invasion paranoia resurfaced and became intertwined with the MC02 legend. The merged theory was then disseminated by both leftist nationalists and right-wing journalists aligned with the government, demonstrating its widespread appeal.

From Thor’s Hammer to Nuclear Bursts

HAARP was not the only tool in the secret arsenal of sinister forces. Another one is the concept of dropping metal rods from a satellite in space to trigger earthquakes. This claim actually borrows inspiration from an old theoretical proposal variously known as Project Thor, Kinetic Bombardment, or ‘Rods from God’. The concept revolves around dropping tungsten rods from orbit to strike the earth with tremendous force.

In 2003, such a project was indeed officially proposed by the US Air Force under the name “Hypervelocity Rod Bundles”. However, this initiative was never pursued, due to unreasonable costs and technical shortcomings. Furthermore, the proposal never intended to trigger earthquakes, as reaching fault zones beneath the earth’s surface via this method is simply impossible. Yet, these facts did not stop Serdar Hüseyin Yıldırım, the Head of the Turkish Space Agency. During a conference in 2021, he confidently described an engineering project in which 10-meter-long titanium rods could purportedly be aimed to hit targets 5 km below the earth’s surface to trigger earthquakes. A video of his talk resurfaced a week after the earthquake, as alleged evidence of a deliberate attack.

A poster describing Project Thor. It features a satellite in space, over a planet in the distance, with a graphic of an arrow-like object shooting down toward the ground. Inset images show the object striking the ground and causing local devastation.
Project Thor, a theoretical concept involving tungsten rods dropped from orbit to hit the Earth with immense force, has been misconstrued by conspiracy theorists as a potential earthquake-triggering weapon. (Source)

The theories don’t stop there. It might be challenging to mask an operation in the skies, but surely a nefarious plot could be hidden beneath our feet? A prevalent conspiracy plot suggests that earthquakes can be triggered by underground impacts. There are numerous variations of this theme. Often, shadowy entities or companies bankrolled by hostile nations require some sort of access to a fault zone. In the case of the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake, it was an oil well as the point of access. For Fukushima, the narrative leads us deep into the ocean. The real impact often comes from injecting water into the oil wells or even detonating nuclear bombs to stir up seismic activity. Motivations vary from retaliation for aid provided to Iran to “testing” the “Great Reset” in the target country.

Cross Pollination from the Bigger Picture

Conspiracy theories in Turkey do not develop in isolation. There exists a continuous interaction with different networks, including European and American right-wing groups. During the Covid-19 pandemic, prominent individuals within Turkish conspiracy circles frequently adapted Western theories, such as germ denialism, the Great Reset, and 5G fears, to suit local contexts. This ‘cross-pollination‘ from various international conspiracy networks was also evident following the recent earthquake.

The dominant narrative among these groups posits that ‘globalists’, or the World Economic Forum, or some other evil orchestrating ‘the new world order’, are responsible for triggering earthquakes. The alleged goal is to demolish these cities to the ground and construct ‘self-imposed open-air prisons‘ in their place. These conspiracy theories are also significantly influenced by climate denialism and other Western notions. Initiatives for ‘smart cities’ are viewed as a façade for implementing the 15-minute cities concept, and the Paris Agreement is seen as a blueprint for this overarching conspiracy.

Bridging the Evidence Gap with Anomaly Hunting

Various conspiracy subcultures often hunt ‘evidence’ from anomalies. They perceive skulls in the 9/11 explosions, or spot patterns resembling eyes in clouds, and notice meaningful numbers in news stories. This tendency to link unrelated elements is common; individuals identify anomalies and interpret them as proof for the wildest conspiracies. Earthquake-related conspiracy theories are no exception to this pattern.

In fringe circles, apophenia is a common theme. For instance, three weeks before the recent earthquake, a red, eye-like lenticular cloud appeared in the sky over Bursa, located on the opposite side of the country. In hindsight, some have interpreted this as a warning sign. Additionally, consider the ‘hidden eye’ symbol in the seismic hazard map used by CNN Turkey. Or could it be merely coincidental that a cloud formation, resembling the map of Turkey, was featured on the cover of Time magazine in May 2021, with lightning striking precisely over the earthquake zone?

An eye-like lenticular cloud appeared in the sky over a different part of the country a few weeks before the earthquake, yet some still believe it was connected to the seismic event. (Source)

Symbolism often plays a crucial role in bridging reality and fantasy when constructing or sustaining belief in conspiracy theories. However, a significant part of anomaly hunting usually stems from various cognitive biases and, at times, from a lack of understanding of science. Examples of this include interpreting celestial events, sudden increases in temperature, or unusual occurrences like sea bubbles as predictors of earthquakes.

In 1999, just six days before the earthquake, a total solar eclipse was observed in Turkey. Subsequently, many people linked these two events. Yet, this kind of association is not exclusive to this incident. The immense gravitational forces of celestial objects are believed by some to influence fault lines. Earthquake forecasters and astrologers often use planetary alignments or moon phases to predict earthquakes. We know that these gravitational forces are actually weak at great distances and cannot penetrate deep enough to affect fault lines. While scientific findings regarding tidal stress are mixed, it is not considered a reliable predictor of earthquakes. Nevertheless, people often choose to believe in these predictions, selectively remembering only the instances where they appear to have been correct.

These misconceptions are also partly rooted in a lack of understanding of earthquake science. If one comprehends the scale of the forces that move tectonic plates, they would realize that such a force cannot be replicated by the water released by dairy farmers, an electromagnetic wave generated by an antenna on a small ship, or a minor explosion a few hundred meters below the ground.

Some discrepancies are often actively pursued to reinforce the belief that the establishment is not trustworthy. For example, in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, various organisations may report different magnitudes before arriving at a consensus. This variation is due to different measurements being calculated at different locations. However, when one authority announces a lower magnitude than another, conspiracy theorists may interpret this as evidence of a hidden agenda. Furthermore, if a scientist publicly disagrees with another, or explains the limitations of science in providing the answers we desperately seek, this too is often attributed to something suspicious. This happens when scientific bodies cannot provide a definitive explanation for earthquake lights, a phenomenon often seized upon as proof of something more sinister, such as HAARP activity or Project Blue Beam, in conspiracy circles.

In recent decades, these issues were predominantly related to fact-checking. However, there has been a noticeable shift: conspiracy thinking now often limits debunking efforts. Within many conspiracy circles, fact-checkers are dismissed as shills, leading to their increasingly limited access to these tightly-knit bubbles.

Conclusion

When understanding the place of earthquake conspiracies within the broader realm of misinformation, it’s essential to acknowledge the psychological motives that drive individuals toward such narratives, especially in moments of crisis and distress. Our inclination to seek patterns and assign meaning to the chaos of natural disaster taps into our deepest fears, uncertainties, and our loss for control. Political ideologies further shape narratives around uneasy situations, providing a scaffold that resonates with our existing worldviews, and also determining our affiliations with particular social groups. By finding solace in these affiliations, we risk confining ourselves within echo chambers that skew our perception of reality, insulated from dissenting voices and inconvenient truths.

Clearly, the nature of conspiracism is complex, and we cannot grasp all of it by just looking at a few examples. Yet, beginning to understand how the conspiracy chatter is formed — through our psychology, political beliefs, and the spread of false information — is an important step. These observations might be useful for effectively engaging with the complex onset of misinformation and conspiratorial chatter during natural disasters.

It’s also crucial to recognize that we are all susceptible to these narratives at different levels. Conspiracy theories usually come from our natural instincts to comprehend and rationalise our perceptions of reality. Embracing compassionate skepticism towards those with differing beliefs, especially in times of crisis, allows us to develop a more nuanced and understanding engagement with the world around us, paving the way for a more informed and considerate discourse.

Further Reading:

Dragons’ Den’s uncritical promotion of ear seeds is an insult to ME/cfs patients like me

Sorrel Kinton
-
0
Dragons’ Den’s uncritical promotion of ear seeds is an insult to ME/cfs patients like me

When your illness is untreatable and incurable, peddlers of dubious treatments circle like you’re a warm, twitching cow carcass. There are broadly two kinds – those who know they are misleading you, and true believers. The recent and still unfolding Dragons’ Den scandal seems to be a potent combination of both. Contestant Gisele Booker, founder of Acu Seeds, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/cfs) sufferer, and recipient of six offers – this season’s first full house – has all the hallmarks of the latter. The BBC and the Dragons’ Den production team do not get the same benefit of the doubt.

In her white overalls and matching Birkenstocks, it’s clear that we are being shown that she is no cow carcass – she’s a phoenix. She opens her pitch with an inspiring story of resurrection, how she went from a devastating diagnosis, unable to leave her bed, unable to work, told she would never conceive a child – to the successful entrepreneur and mother standing before us. She credits her recovery to the wares she is now flogging – a set of twenty ball bearings affixed to a small sticker, designed to be stuck to the conch of the ear, described on her website as ‘auricular acupuncture’.

The reason I am willing to give her conditional benefit of the doubt is that we share more than a natty dress sense – we have both had our lives reduced to ash by ME/cfs. I know how desperate it makes you. When I got sick I was determined not to get dragged into any nonsense – only to find to my horror that the best that medical science had to offer me was little better than ‘have you tried doing yoga and thinking happy thoughts about it’. The story of how a handful of influential researchers were able to push psychological treatments for a serious neurological condition for decades – essentially suffocating legitimate biomedical research – is a fascinating indictment of how junk science can masquerade as legit science, but sadly one too intricate and lengthy to be told here.

Suffice to say that I’ve been sick the better part of a decade, and the sum total of medical care I have received for the condition that took me from ex dancer, obsessed gym bunny, training for a half marathon, about to start my master’s degree, to housebound, unemployed, and needing a wheelchair to be out of the house for more than half an hour, is pitiful. Some painkillers for the nerve pain and migraines, high dose vitamin D to compensate for living my life as a mole person, and some sleeping pills to try and rein in the 40+ hour jags of insomnia (didn’t work).

I’m lucky – my level of impairment is considered ‘moderate’. At my worst I could usually still walk if I needed to, it would just be days and days of excruciating pain and not being able to sleep, and cognitive impairment so bad that I felt as if I was getting dementia. I was unable to remember names, important details about my loved ones, and I got locked out of my bank account because I couldn’t work out which letter of my password they wanted. I get restless limbs so severe I occasionally resorted to hurting another part of my body on purpose in the hope that acute pain would help stop the feeling of needing to claw my skin off. This is getting off easy.

Around 25% of ME/cfs sufferers – tens of thousands of people – spend decades trapped in dark rooms, unable to even roll over or eat independently. ME/cfs is not necessarily a terminal illness, but people do die of it – often when they reach a stage of fatigue so extreme their body can no longer digest food properly and they die of starvation, because there’s no standard protocol for tube feeding people with the condition, and doctors are either not comfortable attempting it or are still so convinced that it is a purely psychological condition that they refuse to treat.

Almost everyone with severe ME started with mild or moderate symptoms and became sicker either because of over exertion – often because they didn’t have the means to stop working when they needed to, or were forced into exercise therapy – or because of an unknown factor that biomedical research has yet to uncover. Every person with this diagnosis lives in soul-crushing fear that we could end up in the severe group.

That is what is on the line when people push quack cures and supposedly grown-up institutions like the BBC platform them. As a group, people with ME/cfs are no more inclined towards alternative medicine than the general population – however the desperate void left by a lack of proper research, medical neglect and sometimes cruelty, the fear that we could lose what little we have, and the grimness of our day-to-day living, does leave us extremely vulnerable to trying anything that gives even the tiniest glimmer of hope or illusion of control.

I believe that Gisele is acting in good faith – she either won the spontaneous recovery crapshoot (the chances of which are around 5-10%), or she’s currently riding the remission rollercoaster, and heartbreakingly could be in for a rude awakening. Having ridden it a few times myself, I almost envy her faith that she’s found the answer, that even if she feels the sapping, ghostly fingers of fatigue gripping her again, she knows how to fend them off – all it takes is some herbs and some handy dandy ear stickers (in your choice of silver or gold).

The stickers in question are an alternative therapy better known as ‘ear seeds’, and given that you can buy a functionally identical product for pennies per unit on Amazon, and that multiple other luxury brands selling the more attractive choice of silver or gold already exist, it’s not immediately obvious why the Dragons (plus bonus wyrm Gary Neville) were so excited to invest. In the outrage following her episode, it has emerged that she likely didn’t wander in off the street – she was specifically invited to pitch. There should have been no way the production team were unaware that this was not an original product or business model, or that there is precisely zero evidence that ear acupressure is effective.

A screenshot of the BBC Dragon's Den episode, showing a close-up of a ceramic model of an ear acupuncture map, including specific application points with corresponding body parts. Next to it is a golden tray with packs of ear seeds on display.
The ear acupuncture map shown on Dragons’ Den, including specific application points with corresponding body parts

This is evident in the clever little bait-and-switch performed in the edit that allows the show to leave audiences with the very explicit impression that this product is essentially a cure for a serious, incurable neurological condition, while at the same time never actually saying anything of the sort. Watched with a critical eye, there is very obvious care taken to avoid any explicit medical claims, indicating that at least one person knows the precise thickness of the ice on which they were skating.

The strongest indication of funny business is the complete lack of curiosity from the ‘Dragons’ (and Gary) about how the product works. The only evidence apparently necessary to induce a titan of industry to drop £50k on a ‘wellness’ brand is a practical demonstration comprising an apparently healthy Deborah Meaden having her shell-like swabbed with an alcohol wipe and a couple of stickers applied – despite this only being proof that the stickers are, in fact, sticky.

Despite the set being dressed with a large ceramic ear with delineated regions that are clearly relevant to the proposed functionality of the product, the usual consultation – where the practitioner engages in the theatre of matching diffuse symptoms to an apparently specific herb, colour or bodily region – was conspicuously absent. We can only speculate as to why – perhaps because Gisele was briefed by production or her own legal advisor to skip it, or because it was carefully excised in the edit.

A screenshot of the BBC Dragon's Den episode, showing the Dragon's Den set - an exposed-brickwork warehouse building. We see the full display from the previous photo (the ear acupuncture map and tray of ear seeds, in a white Ikea bookcase, with boxes of Acu seeds filling the other segments of the display. We can also see Gisele Boxer, a blonde, slim lady in her early 30s, in a pair of white dungarees and beige top.
Gisele’s pitch to the Dragons included the display of an ear acupuncture map – though her demonstration omitted any mention of specific positions, symptoms or conditions

Without the outrage and campaigning from the affected community, that likely would have been enough. The programme very likely knew it was selling bullshit, and the Dragons must have had at least an inkling, but they danced right up to the edge of legality and decided to go ahead anyway – and who can blame them? Despite being unoriginal and operating in a fairly saturated market, Gisele’s elevated side hustle is pretty tasty. If I was a Dragon I’d look at the succulent lamb being offered at the mouth of my cave (sorry, Den) and be salivating at those tasty, fatty margins.

Gisele explained in her pitch that she buys the stickers for £3 and sells them for £30, making £27 profit on each sale. She cleared somewhere in the region of £60k profit in her first year of operation, easily recouping her initial £5k investment. The value in her business isn’t the £3’s worth of stickers, it’s Gisele herself – and it clearly worked. Despite the episode being pulled and re-edited (with the addition of an equivocal on-screen disclaimer to give the patina of responsibility), it clearly achieved the desired effect: a message on her website explains she is sold out, and warns customers of likely shipping delays.

A screenshot of the Acu Seeds website, showing a photo of the 24k Gold Plated Ear Seed Kit, which sells for £30. A note on the page warns "We have sold out, you can pre-order and your order will be dispatched w/c 19th Feb".

False hope in the face of false choice

Recovery stories are a common comorbidity of any intractable illness. As soon as you get sick, it turns out everyone has an auntie or friend of a friend who had your illness and got better by rubbing something, eating something else, or paying a lot of money to have someone poke something into your somewhere. At their mildest they are an irritant that you learn to nod, smile and graciously murmur your way through; at worst they feel selfish and cruel. Very few of the people recommending some foul tea actually care if you get better or not, they just find being faced with the reality of mortality and suffering uncomfortable, and want to regain a sense of control by imagining that the sufferer is a wet-eyed naif, incapable, unwilling or unable to take control of their situation or to explore all available options.

When the call is coming from inside the patient community, the effect is magnified. There’s a real hope in seeing other people recover, but that hope is almost never the light at the end of the tunnel, it’s just marsh gas. You chase the light of a specific supplement regime, meditation, low dose aspirin, oxygen therapy, ozone therapy… only to have it flit out of sight, or dissolve as soon as you reach it.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/cfs) has been the black sheep of biomedical research funding for decades. There is still no definitive diagnostic test or proper taxonomy of the large constellation of similar illnesses that can fall under the ME/cfs umbrella. The year I got sick with the illness that has systematically devastated my life, it received less research funding than male pattern baldness (no shade to the prematurely defoliated, I’m sure the struggle is real).

The choice for sufferers isn’t between proven, evidence-based medicine and alternative medicine, it’s between alternative medicine and nothing. As much as it feels like a betrayal for someone to win the crapshoot of recovery or extended remission and immediately turn around and try and profit off the people they left behind, it’s hard to fully blame them. I understand wanting to feel like you have the answer, like you have power over an illness that in your heart of hearts you know could creep back in at any time and destroy your life all over again.

The thing that makes someone like Gisele so tasty to people (and broadcasters) who should know better is that she allows them to bridge the legal gap between wanting to sell very expensive nothing to people who have nothing, and being unable to make any claims about its efficacy without getting sued. Gisele’s story IS the product.

A very reasonable question you’d expect from a potential investor is who the customer base is. Who is this product for? What is the addressable market? Acu Seeds is already pretty successful – has it peaked? The fact that not a single Dragon or Gary asked this is a further implication that on some level the show knows that the customer base is Gisele’s ‘before’ picture. It’s me, it’s the hundreds of thousands of ME/cfs sufferers in the UK that are being constantly topped-up by a tributary of Long Covid sufferers who go on to fit the diagnostic criteria for ME/cfs. If Gisele is just sharing her personal experience, nobody is breaking the law.

The harm being done by platforming businesses like Acu Seeds goes beyond parting desperate people from thirty quid they probably don’t have. The exploitation in this case is contemptible, but the bigger harm is epistemic. We are at an incredibly important juncture. ME/cfs and Long Covid are similar enough in their aetiology that, recently, research has actually accelerated. More has happened in the last two years that I have been sick than in the six that proceeded them. Maintaining this momentum is vital and public interest and pressure is a huge part of that.

ME/cfs is under-researched because of the persistent implication that it is a yuppie flu – a malady of the louche, feckless and privileged, or the feeble, scrounging and hysterical. The more that trusted institutions like the BBC promote the idea that it can be treated with something as trivial as ear stickers, the more it perpetrates an ouroboros of public perception – if the cure is trifling, the illness must be trifling too, and anyone still suffering should simply be more like Gisele.

1...272829...152Page 28 of 152

Expert skeptical analysis of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and claims of the paranormal.

[email protected]

About

Categories

Shop