It's only fake-news: how to deal with biased media.

> 1. Hunting an invisible dragon

This is basically saying: Stop digging. If you find nothing in the top soil, stop digging, there is not going to be treasure below. If you find some coins, stop digging. Or dig just a bit more, find nothing, and take that as proof that you are hunting an invisible treasure. And when the treasure is unearthed, it is not invisible anymore, so stop hunting for invisible other treasure.

They state "there is no credible research proving the dangers of vaccines, the link between 5G networks and Covid-19 symptoms in humans, you may be told that there is a concerted effort to prevent such evidence from being released". But there is credible research proving adverse or ineffective effects of vaccines, and that these effects are graver/more common for Black people. There is no link with Covid-19, but a concerted effort to prevent misinformation, which amounts to anything not validated with a randomized trial. There is a concerted effort to stop newspapers from reporting a certain vaccine is 52% effective (enough for herd immunity, but hard to understand for lay people who the public health authorities need to take it).

> 2. Fake authority

Fake authority is the other side of appeal to authority. Your guy says A, but he has a poor education and is not an expert, my guy says B, and he is a well-esteemed professor, who steers well-clear of such murky/unclear issues. Is B more likely to be true? Probably. It is established fact after all. Should we discard A, without investigating the claim on its own merit, because only fringe people hold opinion A? No. That's an appeal to non-authority to avoid debunking the statement with facts. Naturally, there will be an authority imbalance on taking stands on controversial or fringe issues. Don't misuse that imbalance. Don't find the most vocal and most unhinged spokesperson for an entire conspiracy and then pit them against a moderate professor. Don't use status quo as an unquestionable pedestal, where everything on the ground is fake, and not worth looking at when someone picks it up. It is also much like: If it was true, it would already be on the pedestal. If aliens existed, they would be on the news.

> 3. Coincidence or covert operations?

This is attacking a clear weakness of conspiracy theorists to cast a wide net and to causally connect seemingly unrelated things. Ingoring that this is a necessity: If Snopes or Wikipedia would have cast that net, and proven causal connection, then its not a conspiracy theory, but just being well-informed. The example the article gives is also casting this wide net: saying conspiracy theories are not true, because these are formed on spurious causal connections. "the MMR vaccine can lead to autism" or "the MMR vaccine can lead to manifest onset autism" is a conspiracy theory, but a theory based on the fact that vaccine research is highly political, that the government really has a hand in shaping public opinion on vaccines, has ulterior motives for public (not individual) health, by attacking a flaw of overgeneralization, instead of pointing to supporting facts. The very same researchers in charge of the adverse-effects vaccine-research, were writing papers stating that the veterans complaining about cancer and birth defects (again, only possible to make that connection by casting a wide net, without full access to causal knowledge) were attributing these health issues to a coincidence, not because they worked with Agent Orange, and that it would be painful and costly for the government to admit is used chemical warfare on its own troops. There is presedent for a "covert" operation.

> 4. False equivalence

A false equivalence is when you take a ridiculous conspiracy theory ("Holocaust did not happen", "5G causes COVID") and use that focus to paint all conspiracies or controversies surrounding a topic ("Every war has victors/survivors who get to write the narritive, possibly introducing irregulatities/falsehoods, due to bias." or "We don't have scientific evidence that states that 5G is not damaging to biological life, so a roll-out before that is risky.")

> 5. The thought-terminating cliche

This is when you ridicule or weaken conspiracy theorists for making a living from it. By questioning their motives, you make it seem they are dishonest, or not believing in the things they say, but saying it because they make money. By attacking their most terrible conspiracy theory, you deny thoughts that say they may be correct on some topics, or to some degree.

Examples are: "Go buy Alex Jones virality pills then, if you want to agree with his conspiracy nonsense of chemicals turning the frogs gay" and "There is good evidence that conspiracy theorists such as David Icke are themselves reaping huge profits from spreading misinformation" and "David Icke is a crank who believes the world is ruled by elite shape-shifting reptilians".

> "the virus was created as a Chinese weapon"

Facts that may make this seem that way:

- The SARS virus is considered a Category C bioweapon
- The SARS virus is a viable bioweapon, because it is incredibly disruptive (not due to low mortality)
- Chinese labs are experimenting with defensive and offensive biowarfare, also with gene-targeted coronaviruses
- Such an offensive weapon research (or military defensive gain-of-function vaccine research, where they enhance artifically the virality of coronovirus) are conducted in labs all over the world, including the Chinese.
- There is circumstancial evidence that security and processes at these labs were insufficient
- There is still no clear information on patient 0, nor the animal transmission chain, which are signs of biological attack.

"The virus was formed naturally". Ok. Where is anything to back that up? Which animal chain? Which patient 0 not on the meat market? How did virus from cave bats hundreds of miles away made it to Wuhan?

You can say: "We expect and think it was likely the virus formed naturally" (which the narritive does). But how does this give you any proof that the virus was not a Chinese weapon. It doesn't. It is a possibility. It is up in the air (like how the authorities refused to admit COVID-19 was airborne).

"The danger, of course, is that their ideas will discourage people from taking the vaccine, leaving them vulnerable to the actual disease."

Dangerous ideas. Ok. But not illegal ideas. And not necessarily untrue ideas. Attack free speech because it leaves other people vulnerable to actual disease. Discard their real concerns about the contents of vaccines, and their free will decision to take a vaccine, being forced, or made impossible?

It is also a dangerous idea to discourage people from thinking for themselves. From excercising their free speech. From not curbing their actions, because those actions are fully illegal, but because those actions are inconvenient to public health. Challenge all you want. If truth is on your side, it should be able to discard conspiritorial ideas as false, not attack them because they are "dangerous". That's what the evil conspiritors would do.