Developing Discernment... in a World of Controversies and Conspiracies
We are living in a time in which the very means by which information comes to us makes it hard to discern what is really true. It should be clear that in this age of internet media and cable news, what is presented as “information” is now an increasingly packaged presentation of fact and fiction. What comes to us may include some form of facts... but it is often shaped to feed our desire for drama .... which includes defining the “sides” that represent good versus evil.
Conspiracies, in particular, provide the lure of drama. They offer to identify the nefarious plots that have been hiding plans to do harm. For those who believe that there is a larger spiritual realm which includes the unseen sources of evil, conspiracies may seem like a discovery of the battle of good and evil that we had long imagined. With increased political animosity and pandemic frustrations, conspiracy beliefs have become a black hole of internet exploration. In the article, “QAnon is tearing families apart,” it is noted how many are losing friends, family, and marriages to those consumed by conspiracies. Adult children discover older parents whose only focus has become sharing their conspiratorial discoveries. As one adult son described, “It’s devastating. It really, really does feel like my mother abandoned me. She implicitly chose QAnon … over me.” QAnon refers to a source of conspiracy beliefs that began in 2017 by an anonymous source named “Q,” who claimed to be a government insider with Q security clearance, the highest level in the Department of Energy. It’s become an umbrella term for a loose set of conspiracy theories ranging from vaccines to pedophile rings. As the article notes, “what’s often forgotten in stories and jokes are the people behind the scenes who are baffled at a loved one’s embrace of the “movement,” and who struggle to keep it from tearing their families apart.” Many are finding that their friends, family, and spouses have enlisted in some mixture of crusade and cult. A spouse is described digging deeper, trying to understand his wife’s beliefs. “She was getting frustrated that nobody in her immediate family was buying in and supporting her. She felt like she was alone in this crusade. … And I know this was extremely frustrating and hurtful for her.” He and their then-18-year-old son held an intervention. It failed. “We were together a very long time. We managed to get past a lot of things I’ve seen end other marriages,” he said. “But this was the thing we couldn’t get past.” Their 20- year marriage ended.
Conspiracies can become both consuming and destructive for those involved. As one enters the rabbit hole, following each new turn in the drama, they may discover it’s hard to find their way out without some marker along the path. As such, I want to encourage each of us to develop ways of discerning the trails of truth through such times. It is not my desire to quench healthy curiosity... nor to claim the definitive truth on all such matters...but rather to provide some means to stay centered in relationships and grounded in truth.
With their potential to provide exciting explanations, we must not surrender our commitment to what really matters most...which is truth. It is vital that we seek truth more than simply what aligns with a general narrative we have become drawn to. A viral video should not be an acceptable source of truth about any claim that is controversial or consequential. If we allow our bias to guide our search and scrutiny for truth, we can become increasingly drawn into forming fiction rather than navigating facts. In addition, we may violate the ninth commandment by bearing false testimony... in sharing what includes false information and accusations about others. How we handle issues of fact and fiction is not something to take lightly. The integrity of our lives and testimony is on the line.
If we want to honor truth, we must actually choose to want truth... even inconvenient truth... more than we want the drama of conspiracies or the unsubstantiated confirmation of our views. I believe that it is incumbent on each of us, living in the internet age, to not accept anything that is controversial in its nature or source, without some significant pursuit to assess the facts. In assessing that which is controversial and consequential, let us take the responsibility to...
1. Consider our motives.
• Am I choosing to accept something as true too quickly because it supports my version of a political or spiritual war?
• Am I being drawn into dramatic claims as part of avoiding the responsibilities and challenges in my life?
• Am I willing to make an effort to discern what is true... even to embrace inconvenient truth... for the sake of integrity?
2. Consider the author and the source. Who is claiming this and why? Is this source reliable and reputable? The process of establishing facts involves many collaborating sources. Particularly in the field of sciences, claims must first stand up amidst institutional peers, then amidst national peers, and now often amidst global peers. As such, we should recognize that facts are better established in the light of many who can review their basis... in contrast to conspiratorial sources which make claims larger than their often limited evidence would tend to justify. If we claim that one video on YouTube...or one doctors experience ...or one “study”... establishes our truth over a mass of recognized sources...we should ask ourselves what basis we have for choosing that source over others.
3. Consider the facts. Are these claims logically consistent? Are they confirmed or challenged by other evidence? This can start with a simple internet search using the core words using the title of a particular viral video, claim, or source along with “fact OR fact-check OR legitimate OR critique OR false” to discover what may be available countering such claims. This can provide an opportunity to explore the sources and merits of what is claimed.
Following such patterns may not establish complete clarity or certainty about what is true. However, they will provide a clearer assessment of various claims...and that can be essential in both what we believe and what we publicly share with others.
It is important to understand that this is not a call to accept the “mainstream” media. It is a recognition that all information can be presented with a bias. However, if we value truth, we will not simply turn away from one source and embrace another without embracing the process of discernment. This is also not a call to discredit one political side in favor of another. Some may deem that the concerns being raised are themselves part of a political bias... because the current conspiracies are generally shared by those who are political and social conservatives. The truth is that manipulation of truth knows no political boundaries...nor does the value of discernment of truth. My encouragement for political and social conservatives is to focus on principles rather conspiratorial claims. My hope is that all will embrace the path that stays centered in relationships and grounded in truth.
For a further pastoral guide to the value and process of discernment, I encourage reading James Emery White’s quick read: Learning to Discern (October 2020).
In addition, the following resources can provide some more information about the nature of conspiracies and many common claims that one may find.
Fact checking resources
FactCheck.org - A "nonpartisan, nonprofit" research center out of the University of Pennsylvania. PolitiFact - From the Tampa Bay Times, this fact-checking website won a Pulitzer Prize in 2009.
Snopes.com - Billing itself as "the definitive Internet reference source for ... misinformation", Snopes.com double-checks a wide range of claims, from urban legends to Internet rumors.
AP Fact Check - from the Associate Press news.
What Comes Next? A Resource Guide zine (and call to action) from Hunter College Libraries. How to think critically about your information sources
Guide to Fact checking, Verification and Fake News from the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism
Articles on the Nature and Sources of Conspiracy Theories
QAnon Is a Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing: There’s nothing sheepish about this insidious internet demon. By BONNIE KRISTIAN, AUGUST 26, 2020 (Christianity Today)
QAnon: The alternative religion that’s coming to your church Katelyn Beaty, August 17, 2020 (Religious News Service)
Conspiracy theories have flourished during the pandemic – here’s how to stop them in their tracks. 02 Sep 2020
Debunking Fake News By Eugene Kiely; July 6, 2017 – Broad info by FactCheck.org After Truth: how ordinary people are 'radicalized' by fake news
Conspiracy Theory Extremism: When Viral Claims Turn Dangerous, July 14, 2020 Bridget Johnson Misinformation on the virus is proving highly contagious By DAVID KLEPPER; July 29, 2020
The Coronavirus Conspiracy Boom, Atlantic, April 30, 2020
The Prophecies of Q - American conspiracy theories are entering a dangerous new phase.
How QAnon Conspiracy Is Spreading In Christian Communities Across The U.S. by NPR; August 21, 2020
Evangelicals are looking for answers online. They’re finding QAnon instead. How the growing pro-Trump movement is preying on churchgoers to spread its conspiracy theories. by Abby Ohlheiserarchive August 26, 2020
QAnon is tearing families apart By Travis M. Andrews, Oct. 12, 2020
Specific Conspiracy Theories Contended With
The following is not intended to provide a comprehensive list nor a definitive assessment of any one of them. The following is simply based on some of the current viral videos or controversial claims that have been circulating, to which I hope that some further information provided will be valuable.
“Plandemic” Video / Judy Mikovits – “Plandemic” refers to a pair of conspiracy theory videos, the first posted to several social media platforms, on May 4, 2020, and the longer one posted August 18, 2020. Both are produced by conspiracist Mikki Willis and feature Judy Mikovits. Many fact-checking and research based sources have addressed and discredited this video and it’s claims at great length. See: Live Science , Science, FactCheck, Snopes
Video of group calling themselves “America’s Frontline Doctors” – As Snopes notes, “Each doctor in the video is seen wearing a white coat featuring an “America’s Frontline Doctors” logo on the left side. Dr.
Simone Gold, an emergency and general practice physician registered with the California Medical Board and featured in the video, described the group as “doctors, healers, and just people that want to help our nation” who represent “hundreds and thousands of doctors.” In a separate video shared to
Twitter, Gold described her take on “flattening the curve” while standing in front of Los Angeles’ Cedars- Sinai hospital, discussing case rates and hospital capacity as if appearing to have an affiliation with the institution. Cedars-Sinai publicly addressed the videos saying that “there is no one by that name on the staff of Cedars-Sinai or affiliated with Cedars-Sinai.”” While hydroxychloroquine may still be in the process of assessment, the claims made in this video provide little credibility as noted by this FactCheck research.
The video titled “Covid911-INSURGENCY” - A nine-minute video posted online by a QAnon promoter uses a variety of false and misleading claims to suggest the coronavirus pandemic is a political hoax. It has racked up millions of views on social media platforms. One can find fact checking by Associated Press and Lead Story
Vaccine Controversies Responded To
Video: Carl Sanders Man Who Invented RFID Microchip Speaks Out reshare - The guy in the video is Carl Sanders who claims to have invented the secret microchip to be used on humans. It has since become known that he didn't invent the microchip and later confessed his lies to his pastor before he died. Here are three pages of an in depth look on him, with recordings (page 3) of him telling about the fact that he made things up. The truth about Carl Sanders and microchip.
“Pizzagate” conspiracy theory about a celebrity laden pedophile ring – “Pizzagate" refers to a conspiracy theory that went viral during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle. Even though the Washington DC police department established that it was "fictitious," it’s continued to spread.
Further detailed investigations by the fact-checking website Snopes.com and The New York Times found
it was false. Numerous news organizations have investigated and come to the same conclusion, including: the New York Observer, The Washington Post, The Independent in London, The Huffington Post, The Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, Fox News, CNN, and the Miami Herald. Some sources are below.
• Huang, Gregor Aisch, Jon; Kang, Cecilia (December 10, 2016). "Dissecting the #PizzaGate Conspiracy Theories". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 10, 2016. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
• Gillin, Joshua (December 6, 2016). "How Pizzagate went from fake news to a real problem". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on December 6, 2016. Retrieved December 6, 2016.
• LaCapria, Kim (December 2, 2016). "A detailed conspiracy theory known as "Pizzagate" holds that a pedophile ring is operating out of a Clinton-linked pizzeria called Comet Ping
Pong". Snopes.com.
• Alam, Hannah (December 5, 2016). "Conspiracy peddlers continue pushing debunked 'pizzagate' tale". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on December 7, 2016. Retrieved December
7, 2016. One might think that police calling the motive a 'fictitious conspiracy theory' would put an end to the claim that inspired a gunman from North Carolina to attack a family pizzeria in Washington over the weekend
• "Man with rifle arrested at DC restaurant targeted by fake news conspiracy theories". Fox News. December 5, 2016. Archivedfrom the original on December 7, 2016. Retrieved December
9, 2016. A North Carolina man armed with an assault rifle was arrested Sunday inside a popular Washington D.C. restaurant that became a center of conspiracy theories driven by fake news stories that went viral before the presidential election.
Claim that the CDC quietly revealed truth that only 6% of the reported deaths are actually due to the Covid-19 virus. – It is true that Pastor John MacArthur told his congregation on August 30th that “a rather telling report came out this week and for the first time, we heard the truth. The CDC…said that in truth, six percent of the deaths that have occurred can be directly attributable to COVID. Ninety-four percent cannot. Of the 160,000 people that have died, 9,210 actually died from COVID.” “There is no pandemic,” MacArthur declared, to the thunderous applause of the congregation.
Further, MacArthur insinuated that there are some, in government perhaps, who are complicit with Satan’s agenda of deception: “The architects of this level of deception are not a part of the Kingdom of Heaven; they’re a part of the kingdom of darkness.” (See John MacArthur Tells Congregation ‘There is no pandemic’)
However, there was nothing new that the CDC was reporting nor any minimizing of the death’s causes by the Covid-19 virus. So what was the source of such a statement?
According to Snopes research on how his false claim went viral, “Versions of this notion circulated widely online ... in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets — one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory — Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, Twitter had
removed the post for violating its terms of service. MacArthur’s statement about the CDC report and the numbers appear to be a near exact quote from social media post intended to falsely discredit the pandemic.
The CDC report simply captured the nature of what has been true of all such viruses... which is that preexisting health problems create greater risk for the effects of the virus. As a virus attacks the body it will bring greater risk to those whose bodies are vulnerable due to lung conditions (asthma), heart conditions (including obesity), diabetes, and more. These other illnesses or conditions found to be present in a patient are called comorbidities. A large portion of U.S. lives have such conditions as they get older. Death certificates will list all conditions. For 6% of Covid-19 related deaths... no conditions were included. The false claim was not drawn from anything new...but rather simply a way of falsely framing the information. The risks to pre-existing conditions has been reported from the start of the pandemic. It has always been the case that death is often precipitated by a virus (HIV, Influenza, Covid- 19) that then causes death through it’s effect on the bodies organs. In all reported deaths, the cause of death includes Covid-19 and can be assumed as the precipitating cause. In fact, the US has had an estimated 228,200 additional deaths in comparison to the previous year, according to a Live Science September 2020 article.
As the Snopes research also states, “... we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to “quietly” adjust its mortality statistics under the public’s radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement the death certificate data does “not represent new information as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our web site.”
See Live Science article or FactCheck or FOX TV Digital Team - CDC did not decrease US COVID-19 death toll — here’s how the data was misconstrued By Kelly Taylor Hayes. And SNopes research: Did CDC ‘Quietly Update’ COVID-19 Deaths To Say Only 6% Are Legitimate?
Jerry Day – Various videos claiming that the Covid-19 pandemic was entirely and intentionally fabricated, that vaccinations simply bring harm that is hidden as part of depopulation desire of Bill Gates and others... and that 5G networks are a conspiracy to spy on people.
One on YouTube called “Covid-19” that has title in the video: “Mandated Vaccinations?”. It is filled with big claims that are not true: Bill Gates did not conspire to have polio vaccine that paralyzed 490,000 in India. (See: here). Tetanus vaccine was not used to sterilize – See here and here
Claim that 5G mobile networks spread COVID-19 - COVID-19 is a respiratory disease spread by droplets. Such viruses simply cannot travel on radio waves/mobile networks. Notably, COVID-19 is spreading in many countries that do not have 5G mobile networks. Clarity about the false connection to 5G networks can be found at Live Science, BBC News, and many other sources.
Controversy about the use of Hydroxychloroquine as treatment for Covid-19 – Use of Hydroxychloroquine, or HCQ for short, has become an unusually political topic. It is helpful to realize that the huge majority who become infected by this virus will recover... without any treatment.
Therefore, the effects of a treatment are very difficult to establish. In addition, the meaning of “treatment” and “cure” can become confusing. Any single clinic or set of doctors who use a particular
drug in their treatment would not have a large enough set of data to establish a clear assessment for the role the treatment provided. This may help explain why the current state of assessment reflects that the broad medical world continues to say that there is no significant value based on the larger and more sophisticated studies... while some medical personal provide positive views based more on their more anecdotal use in treating patients or a single study.
This controversy becomes a conspiracy when some claim that it is the “cure” that could have saved all or most from dying and that the drug is being intentionally discredited to create more death. In considering such an accusation, it would seem wise to put the source’s expertise and breadth of experience into perspective amidst the global field of experts and experience. It would also seem wise to consider the claims of effectiveness in the light of common recovery. For instance, what does the claim to have “cured” all of one’s patients mean when nearly everyone recovers despite treatment?
It was noted that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) website, which provided a table of studies to bolster claims that HCQ has “90% success” against COVID-19, was defined “as the percent of no mortality or probability of preventing death.” It has been noted that the AAPS cited anecdotal experiences, considering only the people who took HCQ. Rather than perform a statistical analysis, the AAPS did a straight math problem to determine the medication’s success, dividing the number of people who were alive by the number who were treated. In one instance, a physician treated 399 patients with HCQ and two died; therefore, the medication was said to be 99.5% successful.
However, Dr. White pointed out that without a control group, there is no way to know how many would have survived without taking HCQ or whether the two who died would have survived if they just received usual care.
From what is currently known, it would seem reasonable to believe that some current drugs or combination of drugs may provide helpful treatment to a Covid-19 experience. However, there is no broadly shown evidence that any have been proven to be a “cure” or intentionally suppressed.
Controversial Claims About The Use Of Masks
At the beginning of the pandemic, public health officials in the U.S. said the general public didn't need masks. However, as the nature of the virus changed, and it became clear that infected people can spread the coronavirus before they even show symptoms of COVID-19 or even if they never show symptoms, that changed. CDC and US public health leaders joined other global experts in affirming that wearing masks that cover one’s mouth and nose did indeed provide more protection... at least from potential transmission to others... and pose little risks. As such, the use of masks joined the maintaining distance as the primary guide to limiting the transmission of the virus when in public. The John Hopkins University guidance report is here : Coronavirus Face Masks & Protection FAQs
Notably, one of the initial controversies arose from a study published on June 11 in the
journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). As described in VOX article, “The study examined how Covid-19 spreads through the air and found that “wearing of face masks in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission.” While the authors are not epidemiologists, Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric chemist Mario Molina is among its authors. The finding that masks are a good way to slow the pandemic aligns with other research, as well as the guidance from health agencies that now recommend wearing them. But the idea that they’re the “most
effective means” to do so, compared with tactics like social distancing, banning large gatherings, and closing businesses, is a controversial claim.”
The role of masks has become a part of the wider frustrations and controversies related to the pandemic. It has become a symbol of “personal rights” for those who resist wearing masks... which is seen as a symbol of “selfishness and lack of care for others” by those who do.
What are the facts? In terms of what God says... the facts would seem very clear. If covering one’s mouth and nose serves to protect the spread of transmission of a virus that can harm others, then the simple fact is that God provided means to health we should use. Jesus taught us to care about other people. Paul taught us to care about the interests of others more than our own. While it may reflect the American spirit to declare our independence by refusing to follow health requirements... it does not reflect the fruit of God’s Spirit. “The Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!” (Galatians 5:22-23)
However, I know that many who contend against the use of masks draw upon those who claim that the use of masks do not in fact serve to limit the transmission of the virus... and can be harmful to health. There are one or two primary videos which are circulating which imply that masks are not efficient, including a video of two women, Kristen Meghan and Tammy Clark, claiming they are OSHA experts who are whistleblowers on the fraudulent lie about masks. While not the same as the controversy on masks at hand, it may serve to know something about the source and her other claims. Kristen left the Air Force several years ago to follow her “whistleblowing” beliefs about the trails of gases coming out of military planes. (Referred to as “chemtrails.”) She believes that when military jets fly overhead, they are not leaving trails of hot air but rather seeding clouds with chemicals used to control the weather and, possibly, human population or minds. While the Chemtrails theory will itself continue, there are reasons to question it’s validity. One can also note that the Smithsonian magazine has published an article titled: Science Officially Debunks Chemtrails, But the Conspiracy Will Likely Live On: A panel of 77 atmospheric scientists and geochemists weigh in on the controversial streaks in the sky (AUGUST 22, 2016).
She now has expanded her concerns for conspiracies related to 9/11 and the current governmental use of masks. The video claims that the virus is too small to have any mask serve any purpose.
In response to these and other claims about the value of masks, some helpful leads can be found in the USA Today article, Fact check: What's true and what's false about face masks? (July 27, 2020), the following facts are addressed:
Fact check: No, N95 filters are not too large to stop COVID-19 particles.
The COVID-19 virus alone is smaller than the N95 filter size. But the virus travels attached to larger particles consistently caught by the filter, and regardless of size, the erratic motion of particles – and the electrostatic attraction generated by the mask – means viruses get consistently caught, too.
Fact check: New England journal article taken out of context, didn't bash face masks.
The authors of a medical journal article that questioned the use of masks outside health care settings say they support widespread mask wearing when people are in close quarters and that their words have been taken out of context.
Article's authors say they intended to 'push for more masking.' In a follow-up letter to the New England Journal of Medicine published online June 3 and in print July 9, three of the article's authors, Drs.
Michael Klompas, Charles Morris and Erica Shenoy, wrote some people were using their article "as support for discrediting widespread masking."
"We understand that some people are citing our perspective article as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less. It is apparent that many people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are asymptomatic or presymptomatic yet highly contagious and that these people account for a substantial fraction of all transmissions. Universal masking helps to prevent such people from spreading virus-laden secretions, whether they recognize that they are infected or not," the three authors wrote in the letter.
Fact check: ADA does not provide blanket exemption from face mask requirements.
The Americans with Disabilities Act does not allow anyone, disabled or otherwise, to ignore mask requirements without other precautions being taken.
Fact check: Document claiming to show CDC guidance about various types of masks is a fake
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did not release guidelines to the general public saying cloth masks trap carbon dioxide.
So what might one make of the so called “controversy”?
Many who refuse to wear masks clearly identify that they are driven by a reaction to what they believe is a violation of their freedom and rights. The claim that science has proven that masks do not serve in protecting others is generally found to be based on a single and unsubstantiated source. If someone is inclined to give special weight to such a single source or study... when set against the backdrop research and experts across so many countries, it would seem most reasonable to consider a dissenting voice as a means of raising some interesting questions or curiosity, rather than providing a basis of certainty about the use of masks. To choose to believe one voice who claims authority on a YouTube video and dismiss all the wider publicly accountable research, would suggest that one is making such a choice based on it serving one’s personal desire rather than factual truth. In addition, to deem the wearing of masks as government oppression may be forcing a dramatic meaning and power upon the use of PPE that does not seem to reasonably fit the wider world and it’s history. Over 200 countries, of all varying types of governments, are calling for similar guidelines. Even in the U.S., during the 1918 pandemic, masks were worn in public and it did not mark the beginning of new governmental oppression. In summary, given that there is at least substantial study that suggests that the use of masks can protect others, it would seem at least reasonable to respect such use in public...and the value for uniting in more important aspects of communal life even while processing potentially different assessments.
Cathy O’Brien – woman claiming she was a sex slave of political leaders using government mind-control - O’Brien is a well-known conspiracy theorist who claims in her book titled Trance Formation of America that she was a child victim of a mind control government project called Project Monarch. She claims she was recruited forcefully as a sex slave by an international pedophile ring ... who were Satanists...including Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior, Dick Cheney, Gerald Ford, and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Various investigators, including Michael Barkun, professor emeritus of political science at Syracuse University, and Swedish scholar Mattias Gardell, at Uppsala University, investigated O’Brien’s claims and concluded that her story was riddled with major inconsistencies and that she offered no credible evidence outside her verbal testimony to support her claims. From here. Other sources here and here.