ReviewJournal of public health policy2024
How denialist amplification spread COVID misinformation and undermined the credibility of public health science.
Review in Journal of public health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Inhibitory Effects ofACS omega · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Denialist scientists played an outsized role in shaping public opinion and determining public health policy during the recent COVID pandemic. From early on, amplification of researchers who denied the threat of COVID shaped public opinion and undermined public health policy. The forces that amplify denialists include (1) Motivated amplifiers seeking to protect their own interests by supporting denialist scientists, (2) Conventional media outlets giving disproportionate time to denialist opinions, (3) Promoters of controversy seeking to gain traction in an 'attention economy,' and (4) Social media creating information silos in which denialists can become the dominant voice. Denialist amplification poses an existential threat to science relevant to public policy. It is incumbent on the scientific community to create a forum to accurately capture the collective perspective of the scientific community related to public health policy that is open to dissenting voices but prevents artificial amplification of denialists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38388891What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.