Close Menu
  • Home
  • Alternative News
    • Politics & Policy
    • Independent Journalism
    • Geopolitics & War
    • Economy & Power
    • Investigative Reports
  • Double Speak
    • Media Bias
    • Fact Check & Misinformation
    • Political Spin
    • Propaganda & Narrative
  • Truth or Scare
    • UFO & Extraterrestrial
    • Myth Busting & Debunking
    • Paranormal & Mysteries
    • Conspiracy Theories
  • Contact Us
  • About Us

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

What's Hot

Gen Z Is Souring on GOP, Here's How Dems Can Capitalize

August 20, 2026

Really, O’Reilly? Bill Demands War Crimes In Iran

August 20, 2026

The Pentagon’s Inevitable Retreat: a Pacific-First “Reality Check”

August 20, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
TheOthernews
Subscribe
  • Home
  • Alternative News
    • Politics & Policy
    • Independent Journalism
    • Geopolitics & War
    • Economy & Power
    • Investigative Reports
  • Double Speak
    • Media Bias
    • Fact Check & Misinformation
    • Political Spin
    • Propaganda & Narrative
  • Truth or Scare
    • UFO & Extraterrestrial
    • Myth Busting & Debunking
    • Paranormal & Mysteries
    • Conspiracy Theories
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
TheOthernews
Home»Double Speak»Alternative science against the corrupt elites? The effects of pseudoscience and censorship accusations in health misinformation
Double Speak

Alternative science against the corrupt elites? The effects of pseudoscience and censorship accusations in health misinformation

nickBy nickAugust 20, 2026No Comments11 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email


Abhari, R., & Horvát, E.-Á. (2025). “They only silence the truth”: COVID-19 retractions and the politicization of science. Public Understanding of Science, 34(3), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241290142

Albarracín, D., Fayaz-Farkhad, B., & Granados Samayoa, J. A. (2024). Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3(6), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00305-0

Albarracin, D., Romer, D., Jones, C., Jamieson, K. H., & Jamieson, P. (2018). Misleading claims about tobacco products in YouTube videos: Experimental effects of misinformation on unhealthy attitudes. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(6), Article e229. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9959

Atkinson, M., Ntontis, E., Neville, F., & Reicher, S. (2023). “I’ll wait for the English one”: COVID-19 vaccine country of origin, national identity, and their effects on vaccine perceptions and uptake willingness. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(10), Article e12837. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12837

Baker, S. A. (2022). Alt. Health influencers: How wellness culture and web culture have been weaponised to promote conspiracy theories and far-right extremism during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 25(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494211062623

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

Berg, A. (2025). Anti-COVID = Anti-science? How protesters against COVID-19 measures appropriate science to navigate the information environment. New Media & Society, 27(2), 1093–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231189262

Boudry, M. (2022). Diagnosing pseudoscience by getting rid of the demarcation problem. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 53(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-021-09572-4

Bowyer, B., & Kahne, J. (2019). Motivated circulation: How misinformation and ideological alignment influence the circulation of political content. International Journal of Communication, 13, 5791–5815. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/11527

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116

Chavda, V. P., Sonak, S. S., Munshi, N. K., & Dhamade, P. N. (2022). Pseudoscience and fraudulent products for COVID-19 management. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(42), 62887–62912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21967-4

Cheng, I. (2021, November 7). Anti COVID-19 vaccination videos on YouTube channel removed for “violating community guidelines”: MOH. Channel News Asia. https://cnaluxury.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/covid-19-iris-koh-youtube-channel-anti-vaccination-videos-removed-207481

Chinn, S., & Hasell, A. (2023). Support for “doing your own research” is associated with COVID-19 misperceptions and scientific mistrust. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-117

Deutsche Welle. (2021, August 29). COVID: Singapore is now the most-vaccinated country. https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-singapore-is-now-the-most-vaccinated-country/a-59016931

Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

Evans, A., Sleegers, W., & Mlakar, Ž. (2020). Individual differences in receptivity to scientific bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(3), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007191

Fagerlin, A., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Ubel, P. A., Jankovic, A., Derry, H. A., & Smith, D. M. (2007). Measuring numeracy without a math test: Development of the subjective numeracy scale. Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 672–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07304449

Fang, Y. (2024). Why do people believe in vaccine misinformation? The roles of perceived familiarity and evidence type. Health Communication, 39(13), 3480–3492. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2328455

Fishman, J., Schaefer, K. A., Scheitrum, D., Robertson, C. T., & Albarracin, D. (2024). Common measures of vaccination intention generate substantially different estimates that can reduce predictive validity. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 22843. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69129-5

Geber, S., Ho, S. S., & Ou, M. (2023). Communication, social norms, and the intention to get vaccinated against Covid-19: A cross-country study in Singapore and Switzerland. European Journal of Health Communication, 4(2), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.47368/ejhc.2023.206

Green, D. P., & Aronow, P. M. (2011). Analyzing experimental data using regression: When is bias a practical concern? SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1466886

Guay, B., Berinsky, A. J., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. (2023). How to think about whether misinformation interventions work. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(8), 1231–1233.                               https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01667-w

Guo, S., Zhong, Y., & Hu, X. (2025). People are more susceptible to misinformation with realistic AI-synthesized images that provide strong evidence to headlines. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 6(6). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-189

Hansson, S. O. (2017). Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 63, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002

Hansson, S. O. (2025). Science and pseudo-science. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2025). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2025/entries/pseudo-science/

Harrando, I., Cordova, R. R., & Edelmann, A. (2026). Scientific authority cues increase the spread of misinformation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 123(20), Article e2535823123. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2535823123

HŠmmerli, A., Beisbart, C., Gruening, D., & Reuter, K. (2025). The illusion of credibility: How the pseudosciences appear scientific. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 47. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0c6106pk

Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014). The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLOS ONE, 9(2), Article e89177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089177

Jonas, M., Kerwer, M., Chasiotis, A., & Rosman, T. (2024). Indicators of trustworthiness in lay-friendly research summaries: Scientificness surpasses easiness. Public Understanding of Science, 33(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231176377

Krupnikov, Y., Nam, H. H., & Style, H. (2021). Convenience samples in political science experiments. In J. N. Druckman & D. P. Green (Eds.), Advances in experimental political science (pp. 165–183). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108777919.012

Kuo, R., & Marwick, A. (2021). Critical disinformation studies: History, power, and politics. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-76

Kuru, O. (2025). Literacy training vs. psychological inoculation? Explicating and comparing the effects of predominantly informational and predominantly motivational interventions on the processing of health statistics. Journal of Communication, 75(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqae032

Kuru, O. (2026a, in press). Weaponising the news: Understanding and countering pseudoscience. In S. Chesterman, A. Taeihagh, & A. Yue (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of misinformation and disinformation. Oxford University Press.

Kuru, O. (2026b). Conditioning public opinion perceptions by “Survey Methods 101”: Informing, engaging, and motivating individuals for critical processing of public opinion polls. Public Opinion Quarterly, 90(2), 399–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfag006

Kwok, K. O., Li, K.-K., WEI, W. I., Tang, A., Wong, S. Y. S., & Lee, S. S. (2021). Influenza vaccine uptake, COVID-19 vaccination intention and vaccine hesitancy among nurses: A survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 114, Article 103854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103854

Lee, C., Yang, T., Inchoco, G. D., Jones, G. M., & Satyanarayan, A. (2021). Viral visualizations: How Coronavirus skeptics use orthodox data practices to promote unorthodox science online. In CHI ’21: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–18). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445211

Lerner, B., Hubner, A. Y., & Shulman, H. C. (2025). Science populism impacts perceptions of credibility across scientific professions. Scientific Reports, 15(1), Article 28465. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-14115-8

Lim, M. K., Sadarangani, P., Chan, H. L., & Heng, J. Y. (2005). Complementary and alternative medicine use in multiracial Singapore. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 13(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2004.11.002

Luscombe, R. (2025, December 5). Trump administration moves to deny visas to factcheckers and content moderators. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/05/trump-administration-us-visa-crackdown

Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520924259

Mede, N. G., Schäfer, M. S., & Füchslin, T. (2021). The SciPop scale for measuring science-related populist attitudes in surveys: Development, test, and validation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 33(2), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1093/IJPOR/EDAA026

Mede, N. G., Schäfer, M. S., Metag, J., & Klinger, K. (2022). Who supports science-related populism? A nationally representative survey on the prevalence and explanatory factors of populist attitudes toward science in Switzerland. PLOS ONE, 17(8), Article e0271204. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271204

Morris, J. S. (2025a). Tracking vaccine effectiveness in an evolving pandemic, countering misleading hot takes and epidemiologic fallacies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 194(4), 898–907. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae280

Morris, J. S. (2025b). The complementary components of the U.S. vaccine safety monitoring system. The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/publication/the-complementary-components-of-the-u-s-vaccine-safety-monitoring-system/

Nadelson, L., Jorcyk, C., Yang, D., Jarratt Smith, M., Matson, S., Cornell, K., & Husting, V. (2014). I just don’t trust them: The development and validation of an assessment instrument to measure trust in science and scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 114(2), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12051

Nan, X., Wang, Y., & Thier, K. (2022). Why do people believe health misinformation and who is at risk? A systematic review of individual differences in susceptibility to health misinformation. Social Science & Medicine, 314, Article 115398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115398

Nera, K., Jetten, J., Biddlestone, M., & Klein, O. (2022). ‘Who wants to silence us’? Perceived discrimination of conspiracy theory believers increases ‘conspiracy theorist’ identification when it comes from powerholders – but not from the general public. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61(4), 1263–1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJSO.12536

O’Brien, T. C., Palmer, R., & Albarracin, D. (2021). Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, Article 104184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104184

Panizza, F., Ronzani, P., Morisseau, T., Mattavelli, S., & Martini, C. (2023). How do online users respond to crowdsourced fact-checking? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), Article 867. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02329-y

Pasquetto, I. V., Jahani, E., Atreja, S., & Baum, M. (2022). Social debunking of misinformation on WhatsApp: The case for strong and in-group ties. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW1), Article 117. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512964

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality, 88(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOPY.12476

Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17(5), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x

Phillips, S. C., Wang, S. Y. N., Carley, K. M., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2025). Emotional language reduces belief in false claims. Judgment and Decision Making, 20, Article e43. https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2025.10019

Ronzani, P. (2025). Towards the study of world misinformation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review,6(6). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-191

Roozenbeek, J., Van Der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances, 8(34), Article eabo6254. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo6254

Schmid, P., & Bauer, H. (2025). Impact of exposure to health misinformation on belief in health misinformation: A meta-analysis of RCTs. Health Communication, 41(5), 877–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2536772

Schmid, P., Altay, S., & Scherer, L. D. (2023). The psychological impacts and message features of health misinformation: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. European Psychologist, 28(3), 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000494

Shao, A. (2025). New sources of inaccuracy? A conceptual framework for studying AI hallucinations. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-182

Sheagley, G., & Clifford, S. (2025). No evidence that measuring moderators alters treatment effects. American Journal of Political Science, 69(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12814

Singapore Department of Statistics. (2025). Population trends, 2025. Ministry of Trade & Industry, Republic of Singapore. https://www.singstat.gov.sg/publication-resources/population-trends-2025

Skafle, I., Nordahl-Hansen, A., Quintana, D. S., Wynn, R., & Gabarron, E. (2022). Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines on social media: Rapid review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(8), Article e37367. https://doi.org/10.2196/37367

Suarez-Lledo, V., & Alvarez-Galvez, J. (2021). Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(1), Article e17187. https://doi.org/10.2196/17187

Udry, J., & Barber, S. J. (2024). The illusory truth effect: A review of how repetition increases belief in misinformation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 56, Article 101736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101736

VacciNationSG campaign launched to raise awareness of Covid-19 vaccine, combat misinformation. (2021, March 2). The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/vaccinationsg-campaign-launched-to-raise-awareness-of-covid-19-vaccine-combat

Vranic, A., Hromatko, I., & Tonković, M. (2022). “I did my own research”: Overconfidence, (dis)trust in science, and endorsement of conspiracy theories. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 931865. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.931865

Wong, L. P., Alias, H., Danaee, M., Ahmed, J., Lachyan, A., Cai, C. Z., Lin, Y., Hu, Z., Tan, S. Y., Lu, Y., Cai, G., Nguyen, D. K., Seheli, F. N., Alhammadi, F., Madhale, M. D., Atapattu, M., Quazi-Bodhanya, T., Mohajer, S., Zimet, G. D., & Zhao, Q. (2021). COVID-19 vaccination intention and vaccine characteristics influencing vaccination acceptance: A global survey of 17 countries. Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 10(1), Article 122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-021-00900-w

Wright, C., Williams, P., Elizarova, O., Dahne, J., Bian, J., Zhao, Y., & Tan, A. S. (2021). Effects of brief exposure to misinformation about e-cigarette harms on Twitter: A randomized controlled experiment. BMJ Open, 11(9), Article e045445. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045445

Wu, Y., & Kuru, O. (2025). From alternative health media to vaccine misbeliefs: The roles of medical folk wisdom and institutional trust. Asian Journal of Communication, 35(3), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2025.2481308



Source link

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
nick
  • Website

Related Posts

From social media to the front line: Russia’s foreign recruitment pipeline

August 14, 2026

Turning OSINV inside the machine: Open-source investigations and information disorder

August 12, 2026

Professional and community-based fact-checking show different strengths, but neither performs strongly across trust, scalability, and impact

July 30, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Demo
Our Picks

Putin Says Western Sanctions are Akin to Declaration of War

January 9, 2020

Investors Jump into Commodities While Keeping Eye on Recession Risk

January 8, 2020

Marquez Explains Lack of Confidence During Qatar GP Race

January 7, 2020

There’s No Bigger Prospect in World Football Than Pedri

January 6, 2020
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Vimeo
Don't Miss

Gen Z Is Souring on GOP, Here's How Dems Can Capitalize

Alternative News August 20, 2026

What it would take to win back the zoomers. Source link

Really, O’Reilly? Bill Demands War Crimes In Iran

August 20, 2026

The Pentagon’s Inevitable Retreat: a Pacific-First “Reality Check”

August 20, 2026

The Strange Politics of the AI Backlash

August 20, 2026

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from SmartMag about art & design.

Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram Pinterest
© 2026 ThemeSphere. Designed by ThemeSphere.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.