Who are you LaughterInLight?
It doesn’t matter who I am because in this post I will hand you all of the necessary tools to debunk me or anyone else.
I felt compelled to write about this, because supporters and detractors alike have said “don’t mind the name, there’s something serious happening here” followed by, “who is this person!?” So as I’ve decided to expand here and on other platforms, I thought it would be good to do three things:
Introduce myself
Explain myself
Give you the tools to debunk me & anyone else (thus, hopefully, convincing you that knowing who I am is deeply unimportant)
‘LaughterInLight’, it couldn’t sound more hippie-dippy if I tried. Sure, I grew up in Northern California, but I assure you I have a PhD specialized in Immunology where I did the bulk of my research and publishing (15 years), followed by directing research for another 6 years (present day). During my career I’ve also made contributions in the fields of Engineering, Physiology, and Chemistry.
Back to the name: LaughterInLight. It’s quite simple. Everyone I’ve ever met finds joy in knowledge. Students and teachers know that moment the spark goes off, eyes light up, and something once obtuse suddenly comes into brilliant focus. Cultures both ancient and modern associate that moment of clarity with light or illumination. It is so deeply ingrained in our society that just seeing a lightbulb leads to improved creative problem solving. To feel secure in one’s own knowledge and understanding of the natural world though the study of science is to be free, if you will, from grifters or anyone seeking to manipulate people during something as dire as a global pandemic. Hence, ‘Laughter (freedom or joy)’ in ‘Light (knowledge)’ was born.
Now, the question: Who are you?
I decided early to never mix my social media identity with my personal identity. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed some of the worst (and best) that humanity has to offer. By just sharing knowledge about Sars-CoV-2, vaccines, and reading data, I have received personal death threats, I have been told I am being stalked. I have had to make reports at the local and federal levels. Frankly, nobody sane enjoys that. Publishing my identity and linking it to this or other accounts is illegal and prosecutable as they have been kept strictly private. If you believe it is relevant to know my name, please forward funds for a minimum of three years of 24/7 private security and we’ll talk.
How do we know your PhD is for real?
I’ve had numerous nay-sayers complain (especially on TikTok) that I don’t provide verification of my PhD. A handful of other social media creators with blue checks who know me personally have vouched openly for my qualifications. I did once show off the dusty framed piece of paper with my name covered up. But, meh, PhDs come in all flavors of competency and I’d much prefer to not further enable the stalking and death threats.
The demand to see my paperwork is a bit of a red-herring in an attempt to discredit science by attacking the person who helped you find and understand it.
Anyone providing you scientific data or information must do so in a way that this scientific data can be referenced and verified. This is standard for STEM publications. Every day of this pandemic I have watched PhDs, MDs, people with blue checkmarks provide misinformation and disinformation that can negatively impact peoples lives while they grow their snake-oil empires.
But, let’s discuss the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. Certainly if someone is claiming to be an MD, you’d like to see that they are licensed to practice medicine and have specialized in an area relevant to diagnosis at hand. But when discussing scientific data, I think of it this way: My job is to communicate the science such that you don’t believe the science because I am a PhD, you believe it in spite of my being one. Communicating science in a way that makes this possible should be the goal of any good scientist. In short, people should never take my word because I have a degree or have multiple patents to my name, but because I present data to support all statements.
Here is how you can start to debunk or confirm information from anyone:
The Data Source:
Is the information opinion, hearsay, a news media headline, anecdotal (it happened to one person or a person someone knows), or is it a published peer reviewed research article? Discard opinions, hearsay, anecdotal evidence. Proceed with caution around media headlines and peer reviewed research:
News media often get things quite wrong and should be treated with skepticism until determined otherwise. Some publications are routinely in line with real science, but all can make errors. Remember, most reporters do not have a background in science.
Peer reviewed research papers are known as a primary source, however papers can be retracted, biased, and the quality of peer review (review by other scientists prior to publication) is extremely heterogenous. Predatory ‘pay to publish’ journals are also problematic and will publish nearly anything. Vetting author affiliations is also important. Is an aerospace engineer the lead author on a paper about virus mutation or vaccines? Imagine the reverse, a virologist writing groundbreaking research in aerospace engineering, not impossible - but unlikely to be a good resource.
Understand the following levels of sources for information:
Primary: “A primary data source is an original data source, that is, one in which the data are collected firsthand by the researcher for a specific research purpose or project. Primary data can be collected in a number of ways. However, the most common techniques are self-administered surveys, interviews, field observation, and experiments. Primary data collection is quite expensive and time consuming compared to secondary data collection. Notwithstanding, primary data collection may be the only suitable method for some types of research.” (Salkind et al. Encyclopedia of Research Design, 2010)
Secondary: “Secondary data refers to data that is collected by someone other than the primary user. Common sources of secondary data for social science include censuses, information collected by government departments, organizational records and data that was originally collected for other research purposes.” "Secondary Data". Management Study Guide. "New impacts from 'old' data - Economic and Social Research Council". www.esrc.ac.uk.
Tertiary: “These are sources that index, abstract, organize, compile, or digest other sources. Some reference materials and textbooks are considered tertiary sources when their chief purpose is to list, summarize or simply repackage ideas or other information. Tertiary sources are usually not credited to a particular author.” Examples include Dictionaries, handbooks, and textbooks. Reference: University of Minnesota, Crookston Library.
Types of peer reviewed publications and data: The Hierarch of Evidence
The best evidence supporting approaches to medical treatments is in fact ranked with Systematic Reviews at the top. Check the information and evidence you are provided with against this handy chart. An explanation of how to use it can be found here.
Is there supporting data? Or is there consensus of multiple disparate sources?
This is a relatively simple research question with a few layers. Are there other independent laboratories and/or research studies, often in other parts of the world that have come to the same conclusions? This may not exist if the data is relatively new, however if only one lab on earth is capable of producing a particular result and no others can replicate it, researchers generally disregard the result. In short: Repeatability (by others) is a hallmark of good science.
Always and Never
Science does not operate in absolutes, run from anyone using this language. In addition, scientists are open to being wrong, if you show me a career scientist who states they have never been wrong, I’ll show you a liar.
General Red Flags
Does the information evoke a strong emotional response? Good science rarely results in a fear inducing bombastic headline.
Does the provider of the information fail to ask or answer key questions necessary to confirm the data and findings?
Are grand statements being made that have no primary research to support them or is the research contested by a large portion of the field?
Secondary Motivation Test
This one isn’t always true but proceed with caution if there are possible secondary motivations at play:
Are they selling you something based off of the ‘information’ provided?
Does the person providing this information stand to benefit financially from the information provided?
Is the person ‘trading’ on wildly divergent ideas or being a contrarian for the sake of building a large platform? (Some ideas are controversial, but all controversy all of the time is an emotional recall device).
Check the ‘Math’
Literally check the math. Where does this 99.8% survival number for COVID come from when case fatality rates have been around 2-2.5% for over a year? What is this number in other countries? Has any country in the world maintained a 0.2% death rate from COVID? Why is that number being quoted? Is it ‘just the flu’? What is the historical case fatality rate for Influenza? Unless you know the answers to these questions you will not be able to do a proper comparison of COVID severity relative to influenza, or assess personal risk factors.
Figuratively and literally ‘does this make sense’? For example, if someone is claiming the spike protein of Sars-CoV-2 is toxic based off of one research paper that dropped the protein onto cells in a dish. Sounds scary. OK, time to ask questions! Start with: How much spike protein was used? Was it the same spike protein in vaccines? Does this make a difference? How much spike protein was found in studies that tracked spike protein in the blood post vaccination? Oh, ~ 100,000x less than the study on cells used? The math says if you cut an Advil into 1 /100,000th of it’s original size it’s not going to do much of anything, especially if it was already modified to not have activity - just as the vaccine spike protein was.
Expertise bleed-through
MDs who are in orthopedics are rarely experts in infectious disease. This doesn’t mean they aren’t intelligent and may be giving great advice, but do consider the source if other things seem fishy. MDs unless they specialize have minimal training in Immunology or Virology. Similarly you wouldn’t expect a PhD to give medical advice or diagnose disease, or demonstrate expertise in a field they did not study. Nobel Prize winners are notorious for switching fields and failing spectacularly, no matter how brilliant, training and expertise matter (Nobel Disease or Nobelitis).
Logical Fallacies
The most common fallacies I have encountered during the pandemic are ‘appeal to authority’ and a mathematical one called ‘base rate fallacy’ which is common as the number of vaccinated people has increased. Here is a list of other common logical fallacies used in arguments:
The clever PhD and MD grifters are one of the reasons I stepped forward into the realm of social media during this pandemic.
I watched them spout mis/disinformation that could kill people, there was no way in good conscious I could stay quiet, this was an all-hands-on-deck moment. The most nefarious of the grifters keep the science believable and real until they’re a few layers deep - too far out of reach for the general public before they start going off track. This is intentional.
Rhetoric like this is a strategic cousin to cult leader tactics. Imagine if you will, a whole congregation is nodding along to what starts out as true statements but slowly drifts towards insanity. The problem is that the average non-scientist has no way to gauge what is ‘insane’ or false once the discussion has gone beyond high school biology. This is where the teaching part of my work on social media is critically important and why I am expanding into other platforms.
My debunk of Byram Bridle was a multi-part TikTok series with numerous peer reviewed references, some basic math, physiology, and basic textbook immunology; all of which people were invited to question. However, it required multiple rapid fire posts… it will be fun to reboot this for YouTube in format longer than 60 seconds per post.
So while I am an active scientific thinker, gainfully employed, and a well published PhD in the field of Immunology, I will not advertise my degree beyond that. Vet the science, challenge the science, all good scientists are used to this and should welcome it being done respectfully.
If you enjoyed this post and are looking for more detailed science and debunks of disinformation please feel free to sign up for my newsletter, or follow me on another platform.
Disclaimer: All views posted are my own and do not represent current, prior, or future employers or companies. I receive no external funding or compensation for any content aside from what a given app or platform provides. If you see someone asking for donations, that’s not me. I do not consult with, nor am I beholden to, any private or public agency regarding my content, scientific interpretation, or opinions. Like any good Scientist, I will occasionally consult with other Scientists and Medical Professionals.
If I have made an error, please do point it out to me. Otherwise, if you are upset about a typo, content, or opinion, feel free to forward your complaint to the ethereal void of my inbox, theoretically, something could happen.
Thank you, this is an excellent reminder of the critical thinking tools we need to develop and maintain as we wade through all the nonsense online. 🙏
Love the list of critical thinking tools!