Paul Is Not Dead

conspiracy theory

noun [ C ]

/kənˈspɪr.ə.si ˌθɪə.ri/

a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people[1]

In 1969, what started as a phone call to an American chat show became a worldwide rumour that The Beatles’ Paul McCartney had been killed in a car accident and replaced by a look-a-like, William Campbell. The Paul Is Dead rumour spread across the world like… wildfire.[2] When asked whether believing that Paul was dead was fun, Professor Diane Purkis replied:

“I think all conspiracy theories are dangerous. […] I think conspiracy theories and the mentality that they bring with them are one of the worst things in the world. And they’ve also excused most of the genocide that took place last century, the idea that the Jews are conspiring against everybody else is a conspiracy theory. Stalin’s Purges were part of a conspiracy theory. Eventually, you decide to take action against the evil people who are oppressing you. […] I've got very very strong views that conspiracy theories are really one of the greatest menaces to democracy. Where it gets dangerous is where you think that people are deliberately keeping the truth from you […] and that to resolve it, you have to kill them.”[3]

Conspiracy theories haven’t disappeared since the 1960s – the coronavirus pandemic has spawned its own conspiracy theory, that the virus is caused by 5G signals. In a live-streamed interview on the 6^th of April, David Icke falsely claimed there "is a link between 5G and this health crisis".[4] Like many conspiracy theories, this one is based on loosely related scientific studies. The theory that the coronavirus is using 5G waves to accelerate its spread is based on the work of a Nobel Prize winning biologist who suggested that bacteria could generate radio waves. Although far from being a mainstream theory (not to mention the fact that it refers to bacteria and not viruses), conspiracy theorists such as Icke have used it to advocate the destruction of 5G towers.[5]

In light of this, I couldn’t help but wonder if Professor Purkis was right. Besides the material effects of conspiracy theories, such as anti-vaxxers refusing to vaccinate their children and thus putting their lives at risk, do conspiracy theories have a negative impact on democracy?

There is no doubt that conspiracy theories are born out of a feeling of being under threat. This explains why, when the Republicans are in power, the Democrats start theorising, and vice versa.[6] Wars and elections are the periods when conspiracy theories are most likely to strike a chord with the general public. It’s no surprise therefore that the coronavirus-5G theory would come to life at a time when we are constantly being reminded  that “we are at war with an invisible enemy”. According to Brian Keeley, conspiracy theorists are “the last believers in an order universe”,[7] but, as Zbigniew Brzezinski reminds us, “history is much more the product of chaos than of conspiracy”.[8]

The impact of conspiracy, therefore, is that distrust in governing institutions in worsened.[9] Recent polls suggest that 61% of Americans reject the official government account of JFK’s assassination.[10] Distrust in experts is equally worsened, the obvious example being Eamonn Holmes' decision to pit the coronavirus-5G conspiracy against the “State narrative”.[11] This distrust, in turn, undermines democracy and limits the state’s capacity to govern, especially since it makes people less willing to cooperate with the authorities. We fall into what Einstein and Glick called a “vicious cycle of cynicism”.[12] For a liberal democracy, which by definition relies on free communication and trust in public institutions, this is serious. What’s more, such theories target groups who have nothing to do with the issue at stake (which, I find, is the case of the conspiracy surrounding 5G and the coronavirus).[13] In a more mundane manner, conspiracies stop the government from getting on with important business. Muirhead and Rosenblum argue that leaders are faced with the paradox of needing to oppose conspiracy claims all the while reasoning with conspiracy theorists as they are required to maintain a connection with their supporters.[14] This raises the question: how are leaders supposed to represent the conspiracy theorists among their followers all the while remaining responsible to the truth?

However, conspiracies have their worst impact, in my view, when they are spread by those in power. In 1951, Senator Joseph McCarthy stated:

“This must be the product of a great conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men.”[15]

He was referring to the fear that there were communists in the US government, and he did so in order to tar political enemies and assert his dominance. More than sparring with the opposition, conspiracy allows leaders to delegitimise their opponents. Conspiracies can take a darker turn still, as was the case when Nixon tries to subvert the FBI investigation into Watergate.

The real danger, of course, is that in the worst-case scenario, we focus our collective anxiety on one enemy. As Professor Purkis reminds us, last century those enemies included "Trostkyism" and “Jewish people”.[16] These examples show the real danger that conspiracies can become an instrument in the rise of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

---

[1] Dictionary.cambridge.org. 2020. CONSPIRACY THEORY | Signification, Définition Dans Le Dictionnaire Anglais De Cambridge. [online] Available at:< https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/conspiracy-theory> [Accessed 14 April 2020].

[2] A joke shamelessly stolen from John Finnemore

[3] Paul is Dead (2014) BBC Radio 4, 14 October. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b04l0tvb (Accessed: 14 April 2020).

[4] Kelion, L., 2020. Youtube Tightens Covid-19 Rules After Icke Interview. [online] BBC News. Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52198946> [Accessed 14 April 2020].

[5] ibid

[6] MOORE, A, Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories and Democracy. Political Studies Review, February 2018, Vol.16(1), pp.2-12

[7] Moore, A. Conspiracy and Conspiracy Theories in Democratic Politics. Critical Review: CONSPIRACY AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES, 02 January 2016, Vol.28(1), pp.1-23

[8] Brooks, A., 2019. Conspiracy Theories Are A Dangerous Threat To Our Democracy. [online] The Washington Post. Available at:< https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/03/conspiracy-theories-are-dangerous-threat-our-democracy/> [Accessed 14 April 2020].

[9] Uscinski, J. E. and Parent, J. M. (2014) American Conspiracy Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wood, G. S. (1982) ‘Conspiracy and the Paranoid Style: Causality and Deceit in the Eighteenth Century’, William and Mary Quarterly, 39 (3), 402–41

[10] Brooks, A., 2019. Conspiracy Theories Are A Dangerous Threat To Our Democracy. [online] The Washington Post. Available at:< https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/03/conspiracy-theories-are-dangerous-threat-our-democracy/> [Accessed 14 April 2020].

[11] BBC News. 2020. Watchdog Assesses Eamonn Holmes 5G Comments. [online] Available at:< https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-52279109> [Accessed 14 April 2020].

[12] MOORE, A, Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories and Democracy. Political Studies Review, February 2018, Vol.16(1), pp.2-12

[13] ibid

[14] Moore, A. Conspiracy and Conspiracy Theories in Democratic Politics. Critical Review: CONSPIRACY AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES, 02 January 2016, Vol.28(1), pp.1-23

[15] MOORE, A, Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories and Democracy. Political Studies Review, February 2018, Vol.16(1), pp.2-12

[16] Moore, A. Conspiracy and Conspiracy Theories in Democratic Politics. Critical Review: CONSPIRACY AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES, 02 January 2016, Vol.28(1), pp.1-23

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics

Under the circumstances

A few days ago, I noticed with some disbelief that China had reportedly fewer cases of the coronavirus than France, Germany, Italy and Spain. In the distant past, I could have believed that China’s figures weren’t that distorted, because it was still tens of thousands of cases ahead of the rest of the world, and was slowly rolling back the lockdown measures it had imposed (surely they wouldn't do that if the number of cases was still high, would they?). Today, however, it is hard to believe the figures released by the Chinese government. On the 25^th of March, Mike Pompeo criticised the “intentional disinformation campaign that China has been and continues to be engaged in”.[1]

It seems to me that what’s important is not how many cases each country has, but how many cases they have per million inhabitants, and equally how many tests each country has carried out. Interestingly, out of the 35 countries reporting the most cases of COVID-19, China is the only one who hasn’t stated how many tests it has carried out. [2]

If China is massaging its figures, there is no doubt that Xi Jinping has blood on his hands. Research has shown that, had China acted three weeks earlier, 95% of infections would have been avoided.[3] So let's look at the evidence. Since late December, China has changed its definition of what constitutes a coronavirus infection seven times. In the early days of the outbreak, testing (and, seemingly, reporting) was restricted to severe cases. Although China announced on the 19^th of March that there were no new COVD-19 cases in the country, Voice of America argues that at least one asymptomatic case was reported in Wuhan, but excluded from statistics.[4] The motive behind China's releasing of false figures would be flexing its muscles before the failure of the rest of the West to get on top of this crisis.

All of this massaging of figures is reprehensible of course, not least because it seems to be intentional. But I cannot help but wonder which country actually knows their true figures? If Spain and Italy have mortality rates of 9 and 12% respectively, it’s because they are not testing mild cases… just like China. [5]

If Germany has 1248 cases of the coronavirus per 1 million citizens, and the United Kingdom has 760, it may be because Germany is testing three times as many people as the UK per million of the population. [6] Therefore, more than China providing what I believe to be inaccurate statistics, I reproach the fact that they seem to be doing so intentionally and then acting on figures the government must know are inaccurate.

The Bigger Picture

In all honestly, I have always been sceptical of statistics, and I feel that the current situation is merely demonstrative of the damaging role they have not only in public health and diplomacy, but in democracy. 

Statistics are used excessively to illustrate points, and sometimes even as arguments on their own. The problem is that these seemingly omnipotent numbers are being misused by our decision-makers. Allow me to illustrate my point with this moment from 16 October 2016’s Prime Minister’s Question Time:

JEREMY CORBYN: …Analysis by the King’s Fund suggests that 40% of our mental health trusts had their budgets cut last year, and six trusts have seen their budgets cut for three years in a row. Is the Prime Minister really confident that we are delivering parity of esteem for mental health?

THERESA MAY: …It is right that we are introducing parity of esteem for mental health in our national health service. We have waited too long for this, and it is important that it is being done. We are actually investing more in mental health services—an estimated record £11.7 billion.

This is a mere extract from a PMQT consisting of a series of statistics. How is it that Jeremy Corbyn was able to attack the then Prime Minister with a figure, and on the same issue, she managed to find one which seemingly proved him wrong? There are a few answers to this question:

a)            One or both of them has made up the statistic.

b)            They are both using statistics which were massaged in such a way that they can be presented to their advantage.

c)            The statistics were carefully selected, and actually don’t represent popular opinion or fact.

d)            Neither of the statistics actually mean anything in real terms.

Whichever of these suggestions is true, the result is that viewers of this debate were misled, and nothing was achieved. When used in this way, statistics can be used to mask greater truths. The numbers may be accurate, but is their real meaning really what is conveyed?

Moreover, statistics, when used in isolation, can sound completely different to when they are given some context. For example, I could use the fact that footballer N’Golo Kanté registered 5.2 successful tackles per 90 minutes in 2015, a figure which dropped to 3.1 in 2016, as potential evidence to show a regression in his ability. However, this is untrue: his numbers fell because his position had changed.

In conclusion…

That being said, the coronavirus has shown us how reliant we are on statistics to know how to respond to a crisis. If frightening figures weren’t staring us in the face, 20% of the world’s population wouldn’t be on lockdown. Statistics can have a place in democracy, if legitimate figures are used to fairly provide evidence for a clear explanation. This might actually make them credible, and reduce the chance of figures being used lazily to bolster weak arguments, or disguise a darker truth which could cost lives.

Whatever the case, it is clear that politicians and other influencers must be careful when wielding the persuasive power of numbers, or they might get the reputation of being liars, or worse, cold-blooded killers.

---

[1] Campbell, C. and Gunia, A., 2020. Can We Believe Any Of China’S Coronavirus Numbers?. [online] Time. Available at: <https://time.com/5813628/china-coronavirus-statistics-wuhan/> [Accessed 7 April 2020].
[2] Worldometers.info. 2020. Coronavirus Update (Live): 1,386,807 Cases And 79,065 Deaths From COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer. [online] Available at: <https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/> [Accessed 7 April 2020].
[3]Campbell, C. and Gunia, A., 2020. Can We Believe Any Of China’S Coronavirus Numbers?. [online] Time. Available at: <https://time.com/5813628/china-coronavirus-statistics-wuhan/> [Accessed 7 April 2020].

[4] Xie, J., 2020. In China, Officials Exclude Asymptomatic COVID-19 Carriers From Data. [online] Voice of America. Available at: <https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/china-officials-exclude-asymptomatic-covid-19-carriers-data> [Accessed 7 April 2020].

[5]  Pietromarchi, V., 2020. Why Is Italy's Coronavirus Fatality Rate So High?. [online] Aljazeera.com. Available at: <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/italy-coronavirus-fatality-rate-high-200323114405536.html> [Accessed 7 April 2020].

[6] Worldometers.info. 2020. Coronavirus Update (Live): 1,386,807 Cases And 79,065 Deaths From COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer. [online] Available at: <https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/> [Accessed 7 April 2020].

Pietromarchi, V., 2020. Why Is Italy's Coronavirus Fatality Rate So High?. [online] Aljazeera.com. Available at: <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/italy-coronavirus-fatality-rate-high-200323114405536.html> [Accessed 7 April 2020].

On the health of our leaders

In May 1996, journalist Alistair Cooke remarked, “I thought I knew everything about the physical condition of President Kennedy and how much of it was, by an unspoken agreement in those days, kept secret.” Cooke describes a “code, unwritten, never brought up, which would have made it tasteless to mention such things”. [1]

He describes how, during the 1960 Democratic primary campaign, then Senator Lyndon Johnson’s team suggested that then Senator Kennedy had Addison’s disease. At the time, this was a “foul accusation” (although true) which was quickly denied by the Kennedy camp.


However, secrecy regarding the health of our leaders can be dated to much further back. For example, in October 1919, President Woodrow Wilson, with 18 months left in office, had a stroke which left him bedridden and partially paralysed. First Lady Edith Wilson became the intermediary between the President and his Cabinet, deciding which matters were important enough to be brought to her husband. The President’s inner-circle hid the true state of Woodrow Wilson’s health from the public.

Parallels can equally be drawn with the press silence regarding the health condition of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. According to Cooke, despite being President for 13 years, 95% of the American public said they never considered their president to be paralysed from the waist down.

Cooke argues that what he sees as an “admirable convention” of press silence regarding the health of public figures would today be considered to be a suppression of free speech.


Today, a quick Google search of “Donald Trump health” produces 737 million results. His Wikipedia page includes an entire section entitled “Health and Lifestyle”. It reads:

Trump abstains from alcohol, a reaction to his older brother Fred Trump Jr.'s alcoholism and early death. He stated that he has never smoked cigarettes or cannabis. He likes fast food. He has said he prefers three to four hours of sleep per night. He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy.  

In December 2015, Harold Bornstein, who had been Trump's personal physician since 1980, wrote in a letter that he would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency". In May 2018, Bornstein said Trump himself had dictated the contents of the letter, and that three Trump agents had removed his medical records in February 2017 without due authorization.  

In January 2018, White House physician Ronny Jackson said Trump was in excellent health and that his cardiac assessment revealed no issues. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. In February 2019, after a new examination, White House physician Sean Conley said Trump was in "very good health overall", although he was clinically obese. His 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a form of coronary artery disease common for white men of his age. [2]

 Across the Atlantic, just two days after being tested positive for the coronavirus, the BBC published an article entitled, "Coronavirus: Prince Charles tests positive but 'remains in good health'" [3]. We have equally been receiving regular updates on Her Majesty the Queen's health. A day after Prince Charle's announcement, it was Prime Minister Boris Johnson who uploaded onto social media a hand-filmed video of himself stating that he had tested positive for coronavirus [4]. On the 6th of April, we learnt that the Prime Minister had been admitted to intensive care.

Perhaps 50 years ago, we wouldn't even have known that the Prime Minister had fallen ill. Today, we receive live updates on the status of Boris Johnson's hospitalisation (for those interested, he was given oxygen on late Monday afternoon, but has not yet been put on a ventilator). Is this transparency, as Alastair Cooke argued, a question of freedom of speech, or is it a necessity in a world which feeds off 24-hour news coverage? Today it seems unlikely that the government would be able to hide this kind of fact from the public eye. What's more, social customs have undoubtedly changed, as have our expectations from our governments. We feel that we have a right to know information on the personal lives of public figures provided it is in the public interest. And it does seem to be in the public interest to know who is really running the country, be it Edith Wilson or Dominic Raab.


[1] Cooke, A., 1996. BBC Radio 4 - Letter From America By Alistair Cooke, Kennedy's Rocking Chair - Kennedy's Rocking Chair - 3 May 1996. [online] BBC. Available at: <https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3kPm7Z2hMNmXcQjSt6JxdK0/kennedys-rocking-chair-3-may-1996> [Accessed 6 April 2020].

[2] En.wikipedia.org. 2020. Donald Trump. [online] Available at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump> [Accessed 6 April 2020].

[3] BBC News. 2020. Prince Charles Tests Positive For Coronavirus. [online] Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52033845> [Accessed 6 April 2020].

[4] BBC News. 2020. PM Says He's Tested Positive For Coronavirus. [online] Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-52065395/coronavirus-boris-johnson-says-he-s-tested-positive> [Accessed 6 April 2020].