The study analyzed data on over 415,000 people ages 40 to 69 participating in the UK Biobank, a longitudinal study of the health of people in the United Kingdom. Nearly one-third of those people, who were followed for an average of 12 years, said they regularly used fish oil supplements. (2/4)
For people without heart issues, regular use of fish oil supplements was associated with a 13 per cent higher risk of developing atrial fibrillation and a five per cent heightened risk of having a stroke” (3/4)
“In people with no known cardiovascular disease, regular use of fish oil supplements was associated with an increased relative risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke”
“An important dynamic of people falling into a #conspiratorial milieu is how such theories can help rationalize difficulties an individual may be experiencing by flattening complexity and providing answers that soothe and distract from uncomfortable realities. (2/4)
Rather than accepting that negative circumstances were often the result of individual choices in the face of a global pandemic, #AntiVaccine conspiracists evoke global-domination conspiracies about the #WorldEconomicForum to explain away a complicated situation and ameliorate responsibility for personal circumstances.” (3/4)
“Fringe beliefs are fringe until they’re not, and the mainstreaming process can be aided by academics and other prominent thinkers. Education is an important tool in building up bulwarks against conspiratorial thinking, but it’s not a silver bullet. Conspiracism masquerading as legitimate thought is influencing educated, powerful Canadians.” (4/4)
@WhippoorwillSong Yes the article speaks to this. Quite elegantly put I think.
“It’s commonly assumed that education inoculates against conspiratorial thinking. However, schooling is not a foolproof safeguard against paranoid thinking.”
And
“Education and conspiratorial thinking have an ambivalent relationship”
“Blake Murdoch at the University of Alberta said #DanielleSmith framing the town hall as a chance to look at the international evidence of harm to children by COVID vaccines is a “reckless misrepresentation of what this event” is based on the guest list. (1/4)
“There’s nothing wrong with contrarianism per se. It’s just that we live in a world where facts exist,” said Murdoch, a senior research associate with the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Law.
Murdoch said there is a vast amount of science that shows the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe.
“Smith also made the claim that the organizers have invited a variety of doctors. I think that is also a reckless misrepresentation,” Murdoch said. (2/4)
“The issue is not that there is a difference of opinion here. It’s that there is a huge amount of science that shows that these #VaccinesSaveLives and they are overwhelmingly safe so to claim otherwise becomes a statement of #misinformation,” (4/4)
“The claims made by these and the other four individuals set to speak have all been disproven and deemed false by medical professionals.
“many of the individuals that are participating in this event, that have been invited to speak have been discredited, have lost their license, and I know for them, they may hold it up as a badge of honour, but the reality is their perspective does not accord with what the science says,”
“It’s interesting because they try to cast this event as being open to different perspectives, meantime, they’re running smear campaigns against individuals in order to delegitimize their perspective,” Caulfield said.
“An Injection of Truth’ is being hosted by the Calgary-Lougheed Constituency Association on June 17 and says it will examine “why an excessive number of Alberta’s children are dying,” however, event organizers, UCP ministers, and the premier have failed to provide information on what exactly “excessive deaths” are when asked.”
“This is classic false balance, is classic ‘both-sideism’ — in other words, they’re presenting a perspective that is fringe and — by the way — has been investigated, it’s not like these perspectives have been silenced and shown to be not support by the best available evidence,” explained Timothy Caulfield,. “They’re elevating it and legitimizing these perspectives in a way that makes them seem comparable to what the huge body of evidence actually says.”