Michael Hoerger’s clout chasing molehill.
For a month in July 2024, Mike Hoerger was hyping something planned for release August 1st, building excitement among his many of the 34.5k followers on twitter, many disabled, immunocompromised, and desperate to avoid covid in healthcare settings where mitigations have been abandoned. The promised coming revelation was hinted at. Mike Hoerger replied to someone on twitter speculating that it might be a product, “a surveillance win”, or “peer reviewed research that will convince elected officials to resume caring” and he more or less answered positively, saying they were “close” on the research that will convince, with “shades of” a surveillance win and a non-pharmaceutical mitigation product.[1]
Any doctor or scientist who allows their fans to continue to believe, unremarked, that peer reviewed research is going to “convince elected officials to resume caring” is in my opinion committing science messaging malpractice. Any scientist or doctor with half a clue not born yesterday would of course be well aware of how long health threats can go incontrovertibly proven by science yet unaddressed by lawmakers.
We need science, but it can’t take the place of doing politics.
I’m all for more science. We definitely need more studies and more data, advancing science-based preventions and treatments. I’ve been shouting from the rooftops for years that we need more good science out there being published, considering all the pseudoscience product purveyors and the anti-vaxxers keep pumping out their publishing, even if some of them keep having work retracted.[2]
But information alone will not bring change, clearly, as demonstrated about the worsening climate situation we’re in. In July 2024 there was a New York Times article about ultraprocessed foods and why they’re so hard to resist.[3] There was also a New York Times article published way back over a decade ago — in February 2013 explaining the science of addictive junk food.[4] And yet, you can find a science publication in 2022 pointing out that ultraprocessed food is still offered in schools despite it being associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality.[5]
Awareness is not change. Publishing is not political praxis.
Mike Hoerger didn’t just neglect to engage on the point of science not working unprompted miracles on politicians — he doubled down on the hype, allowing people to believe that a revelation was coming, apparently in the interest of promoting his paper.
I found out about this because ordinary people, not in the medical field or with any professional connection to Hoerger or any of the other authors, were going around to advocacy groups, email lists, group chats, facebook groups, discord forums, and on social media with volunteer labor promoting the expected paper on the grounds that it was good news for desperate people at high risk with covid. They were building excitement for this for weeks, because they believed the claims that this would be a huge game changer — that help was coming. I was skeptical, but understandably, many people wanted to believe a change was just around the corner.
Scientists and the social media cult of personality.
Mike Hoerger cast himself in a leadership role in this bit of theatre. On July 3rd 2024, someone said on twitter: “One of the big Covid doctor accounts posted that there will be some mysterious good news coming out on the Covid front round about August 1st. Hopefully there is some type of improvement coming.” Hoerger replied on July 4th with a quote tweet with an incredibly bold statement, saying: “Big Dr. Mike here. It will empower patients and families and put substantial pressure on health administrators. Well timed for the ‘teachable moment’ of the late summer wave. No excuses by the winter surge. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”[6]
Anyone who trusted and listened to Hoerger could be forgiven for thinking that whatever was coming would be a revelation. But when the science article was finally unveiled, it turns out it was basically a survey reporting which cancer units at hospitals around the country had masking policies, their geographical locations and wealth levels, but with no conclusions to be drawn at all about the effects. It was just an analysis of which hospital cancer centers had masking policies and which ones didn’t. No evidence was included regarding any consequences of such policies, and Hoerger, et al, are aware of that being a relevant point because they mention it in the article saying “More research funding and studies are needed to examine the implications of mitigation policies for infection rates among patients and medical personnel, treatment discontinuities, hospitalizations, long COVID, and mortality.”[7]
Having called this a “teachable moment” that will “put substantial pressure on health administrators” and promising things will change in hospitals by winter, is quite frankly an embarrassing demonstration of hubris and clout chasing hype. It seemed over the top initially to me frankly, but people were passing around screenshots of this tweet as a message of hope and final vindication they expected was coming. And they were had.
I realize analyzing for possible effects like mortality in cancer treatment programs with or without mask requirements might not be within the purview of the same people doing this particular research. But it seems almost a bit premature to release just a report on data that some cancer units required masks and others didn’t with zero information about hospital acquired infection rates, or any data about deaths in those cancer units, that may have correlated with these policies. It’s a worthwhile analysis even without that, and to people who understand the likely implications it’s disturbing and incredibly sad. And it further highlights the horrible effects of politicization of pandemic issues with a geographical report that seems to line up with red states where right-wing propagandists did more to successfully persuade people early on that covid mitigations were bad. (Conservative interests later had to do further targeted campaigns to persuade liberals against masking.[8])
We absolutely should be analyzing this type of data and recording it. But this study isn’t a game changer and I don’t see how anyone would have thought it could, itself, put substantial pressure on administrators or take away their excuses — or even change anyone’s mind who doesn’t already see that it’s a problem for healthcare workers to be unmasked in cancer wards. Without any evidence of consequences, contrarians and minimizers could just claim that the hospitals in the northeast U.S. are a bunch of rich liberal coastal elites making people put on “face diapers” at hospitals for no reason, since all these other cancer units didn’t mask after all — that’s what they’ll point out. I don’t get how Hoerger thought this could help advocates push for change. It’s at best a commentary put into the scientific historic record, but at worst possibly making a case for loosening up general infection protocols all over hospitals everywhere frankly. They will say, “If all these high risk patient serving cancer centers threw caution to the wind, why do we need any precautions anywhere?” More studies on the implications aren’t just needed, they’re imperative to preventing this report from potentially becoming damaging.
These kinds of false promises make people complacent about advocacy, activism, and regulations, thinking that “big doctors” are going to take care of everything for us. And the truth is most doctors often refuse to “get political” — even though their whole profession hinges upon good political policies, as demonstrated in stark terms in the Project 2025 plans for Medicaid.[9] There’s no saviour coming to do the work. There’s no survey or study that’s going to be the tipping point where people just start doing the right thing simply because they “become aware” of something. Many people are fully aware that covid is a problem — especially if they keep getting sick and they’re out of sick time at work — they’ve just been told that’s just the way it is, and most people are just trying to get by. I’m particularly skeptical of any suggestion that businesses will do the right thing,[10] even if it benefited them in the long run, because it just seems to me like most business incentives tend to run counter to public health.
Because of this hype coinciding with some introduced indoor air legislation for schools,[11] and expected long covid legislation,[12] some people were imagining that Hoerger’s big reveal would be some groundbreaking revelation about propelling legislation already in the works from “behind the scenes” because everyone always hopes the people in charge are getting with movers and shakers and going to announce that everything is okay now. Probably because for years now there have been doctor pundits and scientist influencers name-dropping their elite connections, or visiting the White House, or letting their selected fan base see their emails with high level officials — giving the impression they’ve got the inside track and will soon fix everything. And yet, year after year that’s not materialized at all, and things have gone backwards. Nevertheless it worked again. For about a month, some people were distracted by this.
And another month it’ll be a different decoy that takes up the time, attention, and energy of a would-be activist who could’ve spent that time writing to representatives[13] or getting out the vote, or volunteering with a public health or patient advocacy organization and actually getting acquainted with the levers of power, what is and isn’t happening and how, and who is actually trying to make it happen right now, without fanfare or a celebrity spotlight.
Hoerger’s study nods too much to right-wing framing.
The article says: “With 8 waves of elevated COVID-19 transmission,3,4 health care system–acquired COVID-19 infections are highly preventable, with debates surrounding prevention pros and cons.6”[ibid.] What is there that is debatable about preventing more infections? Why even include a phrase like “debates surrounding prevention pros and cons”? Talking about whether or not a technician seeing a chemotherapy patient might see a downside to masking? These healthcare workers take great care to protect their own skin from the patient’s chemotherapy treatment.[14] So, healthcare workers that are donning PPE to protect themselves from the toxic treatments they’re giving to the cancer patients, but apparently according to Mike Hoerger, et al, there are downsides that need to be debated on whether they should put a little piece of fabric on their face to protect the cancer patients from infectious diseases? Seriously? Why even consider that a legitimate debate to have?
The article also mentions masks being “contentious” twice, and the inclusion of that comment seems curious as well. In the Introduction it’s mentioned: “Although people with cancer have above-average risk of COVID-19 vaccine antibody nonresponse, breakthrough infections, hospitalizations, long COVID, infection-associated treatment delays, and mortality,1,2 health care masking policies remain contentious.” and it’s again mentioned at the end in the Discussion: “Although contentious, universal masking precautions were common at NCI-designated cancer centers during the winter 2023 to 2024 surge, especially at more established, better-funded, and higher-ranked centers.”[ibid.] I almost feel like they are helping the opposition by reminding everyone about the people protesting state mandates and masks in schools mainly as part of the Moms for Liberty weirdos. Those people have moved on they’re focused now on trans panic and Black history book bans. Saying masks in healthcare is contentious makes it sound like the people who are resisting saving lives have some legitimacy. Like there’s a legitimate debate — when that’s false. It would be like if some healthcare workers wanted to start reusing needles with multiple patients — you wouldn’t call it “contentious” you would say some fringe misguided people are resisting science and reason and want to endanger patients. Why not just say “despite some resistance to precautionary measures” which is more clinically and scientifically accurate.
And it is only some fringe resistance along with big money interests. Even in Project 2025 they curiously limit their anti-mask agenda in healthcare to complaining about “general” mandates for staff at facilities.[15] because I bet even the most staunch conservatives and covid minimizers don’t want surgeons putting spittle in their open body cavity during surgeries, and probably don’t want someone with the flu coughing on them during their chemotherapy visits. Republican Steve Scalise wore a N95 mask while working at the U.S. Capitol after getting chemotherapy,[16] and yet Democratic politicians are failing to resist actual mask bans.[17] Masking isn’t personally contentious for most ordinary people in their day to day lives — it’s merely been made into a go-to political football on purpose with deliberate propaganda.[18] The people who benefit from this are industry interests[19] who have seen in reports on labor participation[20] and surveys on the social patterns of older adults,[21] that some people are still reluctant to engage fully in the economy, and these PR and marketing people seem to have really believed taking away the reminder of masks would fool enough people into feeling safe.[22] Another big industry that benefits from pushing anti-mask sentiments are hospital corporations who from the get-go have been shown as not wanting to pay for PPE for their staff or patients.[23] So we can’t keep buying into the bad actor pushed framing — that this is a culture war by ordinary people when it’s really a war against patient safety by big money interests and a few on the fringe.
Social media won’t save us from viruses.
If you stay on Elon Musk’s twitter with the huge botnets that are still programmed with right-wing trolls with programming set to attack people who advocate for masking, and the few weirdos who feel rubber stamped for approval[24] by that inauthentic bandwagon, you might think that this represents most people. In reality most people in most places don’t actually have a problem putting a mask on at a hospital. There were masks in the waiting room at doctors offices for sick people long before the pandemic, I remember that. There’s something called pluralistic ignorance — people thinking they’re in a minority when they’re not or thinking they’re a majority when they’re not[25] — and it’s a really big problem in our borked information landscape. And it would be nice if scientists would realize that, get the hell off social media for five minutes, break out of the covid twitter dopamine hits information silo, touch grass, and stop opting forever into this perpetual anti-mask vs pro-mask extremely-online food fight. Because the baddies aren’t letting social media confuse them this way. They’ve already won the battle by demoralizing so many with lies and fear tactics.They go attack people on social media with their message bombs and all the bullying garbage for you to see, and then they go back to their safe spaces.[26] That’s where they are getting politically organized, fired up, and maybe writing a dozen letters to sway your Democratic senator to reach across the aisle.
And what do we get from the pro-mask crowd who aren’t covid contrarians? Influencers looking for clout, people selling nonsense, and Mike “Hashtag Salting The Vibe” Hoerger.
Mike Hoerger uses the hashtag “Salting The Vibe” in his post about his Twitter Spaces session about his paper on healthcare masks. We need to change vibes, and change the priorities, not lean into babyish suggestions to “salt the vibe” of people who aren’t masking — by masking. Whoever said that about masks salting a vibe was silly, and Kamala Harris didn’t take it seriously because many days later, there were people behind her wearing N95 masks at the big rally in Pennsylvania presenting her running mate. So influencers getting clicks and views from hyping outrage over that foolish comment are kind of unhelpful. There’s absolutely no public health value in luxuriating in attempting childishly to rain on someone’s parade supposedly by wearing a mask. Trying to trigger the covid contrarians doesn’t help anything, and that’s assuming they even authentically give a shit — and I really don’t think they do. And retribution is a moral quandary game of smoke and mirrors[27] typically dreamed up by the odious and rude.[28] This is the entirely wrong direction to promote public health and patient safety. I want anti-maskers and right-wingers to have healthcare and avoid covid too. Not just to be magnanimous, or because Bernie Sanders asked me to fight for someone I don’t know, but because in practicality it’s what’s best for everyone because we’re all in this together. That’s public health.
We need to get past these bad frames and normalize masks as protective equipment and a personal hygiene tool, like surgical gloves, toenail clippers, sunscreen, or sunglasses. Masks in healthcare are normal. But the perpetual social media machine demands controversy, and keeping it going only benefits the internet company platforms.[29]
Big shots are no less likely to spread misinformation, even unwittingly.
I would’ve confronted Mike Hoerger personally about this and better ways to promote public health activism and change, if I had that access, but I don’t. I’ve tried before when he had a bit of a misstep on social media. Back in April, Hoerger was platforming a very questionable zine that was promoting weird right-wing covid remedies, unproven nasal sprays, and advertising an expensive concierge clinic.[30]
I went so far as to privately email Mike Hoerger on April 11th, because in the past he’d warned against unproven nose sprays. But got no answer. His retweet stayed up weeks after when I followed up, and perhaps until now — the zine author’s account is locked to private right now so there’s no way to know at present. So I don’t know if Mike Hoerger even knew or cared that he was promoting colloidal silver as a covid treatment, advertising a high priced concierge clinic target marketing to long covid sufferers, or promoting things like unproven nose sprays[31] and potentially damaging UV[32] as DIY health solutions.
Several other people I alerted privately about their retweeting this zine responded with thanks and undoing their posts, because indeed, they hadn’t looked through the entire zine or further down in the tweet thread before reposting, and certainly had no intention of promoting a concierge clinic, and especially not colloidal silver, which is dangerous and not recommended for any health condition according to the NIH.[33] This sort of thing happens so often on social media, and it’s typical of how misinformation spreads, with people just reposting things that catch the eye out of habit.[34]
These particular debacles, like so many others, are just data points on a huge storyboard that is the problematic activities and terrible inaction in the pandemic. Influencers and hotshots clamor for fans among people who could otherwise be productively engaged in effective advocacy but instead scientist influencers and doctor pundits take them on hype trains stuck spinning on social media and the internet of fakes,[35] disappointed when the “leaders” don’t live up to the virtues of their cult of personality[36] or put attention above good public health messaging,[37] and the temptation comes to go spiraling in gloom.[38]
Having hyped a mystery and allowed people to believe in an open-ended promise of something that would never materialize, Mike Hoerger, is also into prediction punditry with mystery data models he simply can’t share for analysis.
The science soothsayers so often ask you to just accept the future as if it’s immutable. Sit back and relax, it’s just around the next corner. Enjoy the horse race. See what you want to see, because people like being told they can have what they want, even if it’s not on offer in reality.[39] And even the gloom can become complacency. In an essay by A.R. Moxon about the spectacle of political punditry predictions titled The Seagulls Descend this is well-described: “It’s just as freeing in a way to believe everything is doomed as it is to believe that everything will be fine; either way you don’t have to do much thinking or work, or even take the next step that will allow us to take the next step, however easy or hard or palatable or unpalatable that next step might be.”[40]
And this way leads so many high-risk patients, (hashtag) waiting for a masked Godot.
References:
[1] Mike Hoerger, PhD MSCR MBA @michael_hoerger. Jun 29 “ETA is August 1. As we get closer, I will set up an email list to coordinate for the date. Journalists also feel free to DM or email.” Retweeting himself, Mike Hoerger, PhD MSCR MBA @michael_hoerger. Jun 3 “Keep fighting! Another win is on the way!” 38 replies 57 retweets 514 likes 45K views Reply by Lisa Oshima @lisawhelan. Jun 29 “Come on, Mike! Give us a hint! Is it: A) a non-pharmaceutical mitigation product B) peer reviewed research that will convince elected officials to resume caring C) a pharmaceutical product D) A surveillance win E) Something else that I swear is amazing but I’m not talking” 3 replies 2 retweets 76 likes 1.6k views [Followed by some accounts you’ve liked] Reply by Mike Hoerger, PhD MSCR MBA @michael_hoerger “Close on (B) with shades of (D) and (A).” 9:48 PM Jun 29, 2024 1,456 Views 10 replies 3 retweets 91 likes 4 bookmarks.
[2] Retraction Watch February 19, 2024 Adam Marcus: “A journal is retracting a paper on the purported harms of vaccines against COVID-19 written in part by authors who have had similar work retracted before.”
[3] The New York Times — Why, Exactly, Are Ultraprocessed Foods So Hard to Resist? This Study Is Trying to Find Out. Understanding why they’re so easy to overeat might be key to making them less harmful, some researchers say. By Alice Callahan Published July 30, 2024 Updated July 31, 2024 But if the trial suggests that some of these foods cause weight gain because they are packed with calories or engineered to be extremely tasty, those findings can help distinguish which of the foods may be OK to eat, and which are most important to avoid, Dr. Hall said. Food manufacturers could potentially use that information to make processed foods that are less likely to cause weight gain, he said, such as by reducing their sodium or sugar, or by adding fiber, which adds bulk without adding calories. Carlos Monteiro, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, who defined the term ultraprocessed foods with his colleagues in 2009, is skeptical that the companies would willingly implement these changes, though. Making a product less irresistible, for example, could cut into their profits, he said.
[4] The New York Times — The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food — By Michael Moss — Feb. 20, 2013 What I found, over four years of research and reporting, was a conscious effort — taking place in labs and marketing meetings and grocery-store aisles — to get people hooked on foods that are convenient and inexpensive. I talked to more than 300 people in or formerly employed by the processed-food industry, from scientists to marketers to C.E.O.’s. Some were willing whistle-blowers, while others spoke reluctantly when presented with some of the thousands of pages of secret memos that I obtained from inside the food industry’s operations. What follows is a series of small case studies of a handful of characters whose work then, and perspective now, sheds light on how the foods are created and sold to people who, while not powerless, are extremely vulnerable to the intensity of these companies’ industrial formulations and selling campaigns.
[5] The Lancet Regional Health-Americas. Unhealthy school meals: A solution to hunger or a problem for health? Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022 Dec 8;16:100413. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2022.100413. PMID: 36777150; PMCID: PMC9904079. Higher consumption of ultra-processed food is associated with a 22% higher risk of all-cause mortality. However, ultra-processed foods have been served in schools in many countries, including Brazil and the USA.There are many possible reasons that ultra-processed food is still offered in schools, from cultural aspects to logistical problems. The United States Department of Agriculture, one of the official entities responsible for the USA’s dietary guidelines “sets school meal nutrition standards to ensure that schools offer students the right balance of fruits, vegetables, low-fat or fat-free milk, whole grains, and protein foods”. This statement, however, does not explicitly prohibit ultra-processed food.
[6] tweet reply by Mike Hoerger. The original tweet by Jennifer Howell @genxjenh. Jul 3 Replying to @fcknsyd “One of the big Covid doctor accounts posted that there will be some mysterious good news coming out on the Covid front round about August 1st. Hopefully there is some type of improvement coming. Your voice helps others too if that is any consolation.” quote tweeted by Mike Hoerger, PhD MSCR MBA @michael_hoerger “Big Dr. Mike here. It will empower patients and families and put substantial pressure on health administrators. Well timed for the ‘teachable moment’ of the late summer wave. No excuses by the winter surge. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” 1:00 AM Jul 4, 2024 134.6K Views 52 replies 183 retweets 1.4K hearts 342 bookmarks.
[7] Hoerger M, Rivera D, Mossman B, Sherard B, Peyser T, Alcorn TM. Masking Policies at National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers During Winter 2023 to 2024 COVID-19 Surge. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(7):e2424999. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.24999 Highlighting clinical equipoise, 41.8% of NCI-designated cancer centers required universal masking in at least some clinical areas during the winter 2023 to 2024 COVID-19 surge. Such policies were more common in the Northeast, despite higher transmission in the South and Midwest.3 Longer NCI designation, more program funding, and higher care rankings were also associated with having universal masking policies. With 8 waves of elevated COVID-19 transmission,3,4 health care system–acquired COVID-19 infections are highly preventable, with debates surrounding prevention pros and cons.6 Cancer centers with masking policies should delineate the data and decision-making models underlying their policy to inform other centers considering their own policies. Study limitations include a focus on a time point in the COVID-19 pandemic, in the US, and at academic cancer centers with NCI designation; thus, findings may have limited generalizability to other contexts. More research funding and studies are needed to examine the implications of mitigation policies for infection rates among patients and medical personnel, treatment discontinuities, hospitalizations, long COVID, and mortality. Although contentious, universal masking precautions were common at NCI-designated cancer centers during the winter 2023 to 2024 surge, especially at more established, better-funded, and higher-ranked centers.
[8] Twitter from @theSGLF: State Government Leadership Foundation (SGLF) Feb 9, 2022 Our latest ad is making an impact and liberals are now agreeing with what conservatives have been saying all along: mask mandates do more harm than good.
[9] Center for Children & Families (CCF) of the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy — Project 2025 Blueprint Also Includes Draconian Cuts to Medicaid — June 17, 2024 Edwin Park With such drastic cuts in federal funding — along with restrictions on how states can finance their share of Medicaid costs — states would face a massive cost-shift from the federal government for their Medicaid programs. They would have no choice but to institute truly draconian cuts to eligibility, benefits and provider reimbursement rates. Such cuts would be furthered by the dramatic rollback of existing federal beneficiary protections and requirements, including those related to benefits and cost-sharing. This, in turn, would likely drive tens of millions into the ranks of the uninsured and underinsured and severely reduce access to health care and long-term services and supports needed by low-income children, families, seniors, people with disabilities and other adults. Moreover, because Medicaid is the largest source of federal funding for states, capping Medicaid would also likely lead to deep, damaging budget cuts to other state spending like for K-12 education.
[10] Business incentives run counter to public health. — Mar 29th, 2024 wat3rm370n on tumblr These industries are led by people who regularly run things into the ground and then eject in their golden parachutes, decade after decade through booms and busts. The subprime housing crisis. Big tobacco. The airplane debacles. The tech hype. The automotive industry went after Ralph Nader with stalking and honey traps just because they didn’t want anyone to demand seat belts. Fossil fuel hires military mercenary outfits to remove opposition to poisoning people’s drinking water.
[11] Tonko.House.gov — Tonko, Fitzpatrick Introduce Bill to Improve Indoor Air Quality Bipartisan legislation would give EPA resources and authority to protect Americans from poor indoor air quality — Washington, July 25, 2024 WASHINGTON, DC — Congressman Paul D. Tonko (D-NY) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) today announced the introduction of their Indoor Air Quality and Healthy Schools Act, bipartisan legislation that would protect the public from poor indoor air quality (IAQ).
[12] Sanders.Senate.gov — NEWS: Sanders Introduces Historic Moonshot Legislation to Address the Long COVID Crisis — August 2, 2024 Joining Sanders on the legislation are Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.). “For far too long, millions of Americans suffering from long COVID have had their symptoms dismissed or ignored — by the medical community, by the media, and by Congress,” said Sanders. “That is unacceptable and has got to change. The legislation that we have introduced finally recognizes that long COVID is a public health emergency and provides an historic investment into research, development, and education needed to counter the effects of this terrible disease.
[14] SciShow — The Return of Thalidomide — Jun 14, 2023 Hank Green on Youtube: As I’m making this video, I’m actually taking chemotherapy right now. And it’s wild. They give you the chemo, but before they do they dress up to make sure none of it gets on their skin because it’s dangerous for people. And then they put it in my veins. Sorry if that’s how you found out I have cancer. It’s a pretty treatable kind. We’re doing good.
[15] Mandate for Leadership The Conservative Promise Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project. 2023 by The Heritage Foundation Page 475: “Refrain from imposing general COVID-19 mask mandates on health care facilities or personnel.”
[16] Steve Scalise undergoing stem cell transplant in ‘significant milestone’ in battle against cancer — Ken Tran — USA TODAY Jan 5, 2024 Scalise, the №2 ranking House Republican, was diagnosed with a treatable form of blood cancer in August. Since undergoing chemotherapy, Scalise has worn a mask around others while working in the Capitol.
[17] Nassau County lawmakers approve bill to ban masks in public By Eyewitness News WABC Tuesday, August 6, 2024 7:02PM The Republican majority passed the bill with all 12 voting in favor and seven Democrats abstaining.
[18] Anti-mask Woke-washing. The moral distortion of social justice. CHLOE HUMBERT AUG 31, 2023 Patrick Fagan’s assertion was that mere messaging would be powerful — if people are made to believe it’s masking that is unfair. Patrick Fagan also had some other weird and wrong ideas, but there was no question that he was engaged in planning deliberate manipulation with propaganda against masking. And Tanya Kymenko was already equating all NPIs (Non Pharmaceutical Interventions) as the same as “lockdown” — which has expanded to include just wearing a mask.15 State Government Leadership Foundation openly bragged on social media about an advertising campaign that specifically targeted liberals to persuade them of the lie that masks supposedly do more harm than good.16
[19] CMD — How The Koch Network Hijacked The War On Covid By Walker Bragman and Alex Kotch | December 22nd, 2021 Lockdown measures drove down cases in the U.S. and likely saved millions of lives globally. But the decline of in-person shopping and work, combined with factory shutdowns in places like China, disrupted the economy. A 2020 report from the corporate consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found the hardest-hit industries would take years to recover. One sector in particular that took a big hit was the fossil fuel industry. Oil demand fell sharply in 2020, placing the global economy on uncertain footing. Before long, business-aligned groups — particularly those connected to fossil fuels — began targeting the public health measures threatening their bottom lines. Chief among them were groups tied to billionaire Charles Koch, owner of Koch Industries, the largest privately held fossil fuel company in the world. The war on public health measures began on March 20, 2020, when Americans For Prosperity (AFP), the right-wing nonprofit founded by Charles and David Koch, issued a press release calling on states to remain open.
[20] MarketWatch — People are ‘long social distancing’ due to COVID-19. Economists say that’s contributing to a drop in labor-force participation. By Zoe Han, December 2022 Knowing that COVID-19 has not gone away, some people are not yet prepared to let their guard down, according to a working paper distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Some 13% of U.S. workers said they will continue social distancing as the economy opens up and cases fall, and another 45% said they will do so in limited ways. Only 42% said they plan a “complete return” to the activities they participated in before the pandemic. The study, titled “Long Social Distancing,” estimated that unwillingness among workers to be in close proximity to others — which in many cases is prudent, especially for those who have underlying conditions or elderly relatives — reduced labor participation by 2.5 percentage points in the first half of 2022 compared with what economists would normally expect to see. That translates to $250 billion in potential annual output, representing a drop of nearly 1 percentage point.
[21] News-Medical.Net — Older adults’ social patterns shift post-pandemic, study finds Apr 10 2024 In one paper published in February in the journal Wellbeing, Space and Society, 60% of respondents said they spend more time in their home while 75% said they dine out less. Some 62% said they visit cultural and arts venues less, and more than half said they attend church or the gym less than before the pandemic.While that survey was taken two years ago, the most recent survey taken in spring 2023 showed similar trends, with more than half of respondents still reporting that their socialization and entertainment routines were different than they were pre-pandemic. In another paper titled “I just can’t go back,” 80% of respondents reported that there are some places they are reluctant to visit in person anymore. “The thought of going inside a gym with lots of people breathing heavily and sweating is not something I can see myself ever doing again,” said one 72-year-old male.
[22] And Voila, An Anti-Mask Twitter Rando Tweet from @reubenR80027912 dated 1019 am May 7, 2021 says Main Street is Very simple. Do 3 things PSA campaigns that you won’t die if vaxxed. Remind people kids aren’t a risk. Remove masks everywhere so people don’t constantly live in fear. Voila. Roaring economy. Spending is about freedom from fear. Quote-tweet from same account on February 22, 2021 says There’s something to the Mad Men pilot and covid. Telling people they’re more likely to die in a car accident than covid doesn’t matter. Nor do vax stats. Happiness is freedom from fear, a billboard that screams whatever you’re doing is ok @ DKThomp
[23] AP News — Hospitals still ration medical N95 masks as stockpiles swell. By JASON DEAREN, JULIET LINDERMAN and MARTHA MENDOZA. February 16, 2021 Internal government emails obtained by The Associated Press show there were deliberate decisions to withhold vital information about new mask manufacturers and availability. Exclusive trade data and interviews with manufacturers, hospital procurement officials and frontline medical workers reveal a communication breakdown — not an actual shortage — that is depriving doctors, nurses, paramedics and other people risking exposure to COVID-19 of first-rate protection. Before the pandemic, medical providers followed manufacturer and government guidelines that called for N95s to be discarded after each use, largely to protect doctors and nurses from catching infectious diseases themselves. As N95s ran short, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention modified those guidelines to allow for extended use and reuse only if supplies are “depleted,” a term left undefined. Hospitals have responded in a variety of ways, the AP has found. Some are back to pre-COVID-19, one-use-per-patient N95 protocols, but most are doling out one mask a day or fewer to each employee. Many hospital procurement officers say they are relying on CDC guidelines for depleted supplies, even if their own stockpiles are robust.
[24] What Is the Bandwagon Effect? Why People Follow the Crowd By The Investopedia Team Updated June 29, 2023 Reviewed by Robert C. Kelly The bandwagon effect is a psychological phenomenon in which people do something primarily because other people are doing it, regardless of their own beliefs, which they may ignore or override. This tendency of people to align their beliefs and behaviors with those of a group is also called a herd mentality. The term “bandwagon effect” originates from politics but has wide implications commonly seen in consumer behavior and investment activities. This phenomenon can be seen during bull markets and the growth of asset bubbles.
[25] Pluralistic ignorance From Wikipedia In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance refers to a situation in which the minority position on a given topic is wrongly perceived to be the majority position or where the majority position is wrongly perceived to be the minority position.
[26] They may hate you, but they love each other. You see hate mongering, they see a bright future. CHLOE HUMBERT OCT 27, 2023 Right-wing groups are staging messaging and trolling campaigns behind the scenes in telegram channels, right-wing forums, group chats, and discord servers. They don’t go on open twitter and reddit in mixed company and use that for strategizing or expressing their inner most deepest feelings, nor do they often even expose themselves to their opposition’s narratives. They’re not interested in “the discourse” — they see the open internet as a battlefield — and that’s exactly what it is — cognitive warfare. So they go on twitter or facebook to drop the message bombs and all the garbage they want YOU to see, all the nasty bullying they want YOU to experience, and then go back to their safe spaces for rallying, reinforcement, hope, and support. Their safe spaces are perceived by them as supportive, positive, upbeat, and friendly. Of course they’re not offering support or friendliness to YOU. But they offer community and belonging to their own.
[27] Jessica Where There’s Smoke, and Mirrors Chloe Humbert · Jun 28, 2023
[29] Hypernormalisation Documentary, 2016, by Adam Curtis. ”The liberals were outraged at Trump. But they expressed their outrage in cyberspace so it had no effect. Because the algorithms made sure that they only spoke to people who already agreed with them. Instead ironically their waves of angry messages and tweets benefitted the large corporations who ran the social media platforms. one online analyst put it simply — angry people click. It meant that the radical fury that came like waves across the internet no longer had the power to change the world. Instead it became a fuel that fed the systems of power making them ever more powerful.”
[30] Lefty zine promoting right-wing pseudoscience protocols of an expensive concierge clinic? Chloe Humbert · Apr 10, 2024 The link to “Nasal Sprays and Reducing the Risk of Covid Reinfection” goes to a Youtube video of RTHM Health from September 2023, a clinic which is referenced in the zine itself as a Long Covid treatment clinic. It’s a telehealth clinic in the concierge startup model whose website says they’re serving less than 10 states at this time, with plans to serve more, and that boasts offering a range of treatments “based on the latest research” — which I guess seems to mean including remedies which have not been proven effective or not been proven safe. The link takes you directly to about 35 seconds into the video to a point where on the screen is a presentation slide with the words “colloidal silver” next to a screenshot of a PLOS ONE study titled “Evaluation of silver nanoparticles for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health workers”.
[31] The Best Approach to COVID Prevention? It’s Not Up Your Nose — Nasal sprays aren’t part of a science-based multilayered COVID-prevention strategy KAITLIN SUNDLING APR 29, 2024 You may encounter unproven products for COVID prevention or treatment on social media, available over the counter at pharmacies, from online vendors, and in the peer-reviewed research literature (such as PubMed). Unproven products can seem attractive, especially when social media marketing overhypes potential benefits, without mention of risks or uncertainties. Even for people who are highly informed about COVID, it is easy to be swayed by aggressive advertising and personal anecdotes about unproven products.
[33] NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Health Info Research Grants & Fur Home > > Colloidal Silver: What You Need To Know Health Information Colloidal Silver: What You Need To Know What is colloidal silver? Colloidal silver consists of tiny silver particles in a liquid. It is sometimes promoted on the internet as a dietary supplement; however, evidence supporting health-related claims is lacking. Is colloidal silver safe? The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned that colloidal silver isn’t safe or effective for treating any disease or condition. Additionally, the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission have taken action against a number of companies for making misleading claims about colloidal silver products. Colloidal silver can cause serious side effects. The most common is argyria, a build-up of silver in the body’s tissues causing a bluish-gray discoloration of the skin, which is usually permanent. Colloidal silver can cause poor absorption of some drugs, such as certain antibiotics and thyroxine (used to treat thyroid deficiency). There is also some evidence that it can cause kidney, liver, or nervous system problems. Is colloidal silver effective? Silver has no known functions or benefits in the body when taken by mouth, and it is not an essential mineral.
[34] Sharing of misinformation is habitual, not just lazy or biased, Gizem Ceylan, Ian A. Anderson, and Wendy Wood, Edited by Susan Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ; received September 28, 2022; accepted December 3, 2022, January 17, 2023 120 (4) e2216614120 Why do people share misinformation on social media? In this research (N = 2,476), we show that the structure of online sharing built into social platforms is more important than individual deficits in critical reasoning and partisan bias — commonly cited drivers of misinformation. Due to the reward-based learning systems on social media, users form habits of sharing information that attracts others’ attention. Once habits form, information sharing is automatically activated by cues on the platform without users considering response outcomes such as spreading misinformation. As a result of user habits, 30 to 40% of the false news shared in our research was due to the 15% most habitual news sharers. Suggesting that sharing of false news is part of a broader response pattern established by social media platforms, habitual users also shared information that challenged their own political beliefs. Finally, we show that sharing of false news is not an inevitable consequence of user habits: Social media sites could be restructured to build habits to share accurate information.
[36] Ally, role model, or celebrity influencer? For Thee But Not For Me is not public health. A few things to consider regarding the social media public health cult of personalities and the appearance of impropriety. CHLOE HUMBERT JUN 02, 2023 The people who disappoint this way always have a following of course, or otherwise nobody would notice their antics and missteps — nobody would care. But these are people who are putting themselves out there as role models and leaders and social media influencers. And they often cultivate that following which makes it more confusing for some of us — why on earth they would diss their disabled and immunocompromised followers so blatantly. They enjoy the celebrity, but seem to think that their followers should just accept whatever they do, even when they say one thing and do another.
[37] Repeat the truth, don’t lead with a lie The “truth sandwich” means leading with the facts and repeating the correct information. It’s probably the only way to debunk lies without helping to promote them. CHLOE HUMBERT OCT 14, 2022 Social media is addictive. Not just for the average user, though that’s bad enough. It also seems intoxicating to people with a lot of followers and fans — since they get tons more feedback. It could be people who have longed for approbation or they may have incidentally found that going viral scratches an itch maybe they didn’t know they had for reaching people with science education. Unfortunately, the algorithms involved don’t have anyone’s best interest in mind, only promoting engagement, and keeping people on the app. Leading with the truth and doing good public information won’t please the algorithms as much as rage fodder and fake news, and so there is no built-in incentive producing mechanism to teach people to do things with science communication best practices, at least not within the social media itself. In fact, quite the opposite.
[38] Seek protection from noise and spiraling gloom — CHLOE HUMBERT FEB 16, 2023 If you feel like things are spiraling into despair or gloom, get off social media, and get involved in some type of activism or advocacy. Even if it’s just writing your elected representatives letters about what’s important to you — that’s a big something that actually could contribute to real change. So no, you don’t have to swing wildly from doom to toxic positivity like some wellness influencer.
[39] Psyblog — Grifters: The 7 Psychological Principles That Con Artists Use *- Dr Jeremy Dean — Posted on July 16, 2022 Once grifters know what people want, even if it doesn’t exist, they are in a position to manipulate them. They will play on people’s desperation; unfortunately the more desperate people are, the easier they are to con.
[40] The Seagulls Descend — Living in a shadow future vs. engaging with the present, and creating unmistakable, effective differentiators — both for ourselves and for our nation’s low-information voters. A.R. Moxon Jul 27, 2024 So often it feels as if we’re accepting the current media framework of speculation and prediction and punditry, not so much dealing with what is or contending for what should be but living in a bleak and unbroken shadow future, where everything is already decided, which frees us from the moral imperative to have to do anything. It’s just as freeing in a way to believe everything is doomed as it is to believe that everything will be fine; either way you don’t have to do much thinking or work, or even take the next step that will allow us to take the next step, however easy or hard or palatable or unpalatable that next step might be. So we behave as if we are political operatives, predictive wizards, demonstrating not our commitment to a better vision of the future by contending with reality here in the present and working for best outcomes, but rather our ability to know what will happen before it happens, so that when it happens we can say see? and if we are wrong, we just run on to the next topic, chasing seagulls.