Petitio Principii, or, A Brief Lesson in Manipulation

Petitio principii is Latin for a type of logical fallacy that is better known as “begging the question.” I’ve been reminded of it often over the past five-or-so years with respect to science and public proclamations in the Age of Covid.

Most recently, this fallacy has been on full display around HHS Secretary RFK Jr.’s revocation of the recommendation to administer mRNA Covid shots to children and pregnant women. Then yet another round of the petitio principii fallacies hit the media when, a short time later, Kennedy cancelled $500 million in grants covering 19 different research projects based on developing a wide range of new mRNA shots to prevent and/or treat everything from infectious disease to cancer.

“Millions of lives will be lost by these actions!”

“The mRNA vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ so why not recommend them?”

“Kenney’s unscientific anti-vax beliefs will put innocent lives at risk.”

It is a twist of assertions where each relies on the truth of the others to stay afloat. Millions of lives will be lost if and only if the shots actually are safe and effective. The shots are safe and effective if and only if it is shown that they have saved millions of lives without causing substantial harm. Kennedy is actually “anti-vax” if and only if he opposes all vaccines, including those that are said to be “safe and effective.”

No references are needed to support those assertions. Their “truth” is established through repetition. We’ve been told these things by journalists and the health care spokespeople they have put their microphones in front of throughout the Covid era. To attempt to refute any one of them, even by citing peer-reviewed evidence and/or public statements exposing their inaccuracy, is to be labeled a “science denier” or as someone spreading or believing in “misinformation.”

I observed firsthand how “the science” around the mRNA vaccine platform was misrepresented to the public. I observed firsthand how accurate information was (and is) actively suppressed in order to maintain the public façade of a “consensus of the experts.” And what are the chances that this kind of manipulation and public crafting of a message has only happened vis-à-vis Covid and the mRNA shots?

Two lessons became crystal clear during Covid: First, whenever I’m being encouraged to believe something because a “consensus of experts” agrees with it, there’s a very good chance that a close look at the data will show that dissenting scientific opinions are being suppressed. And even more importantly, in the realm of science if I’m being told that it is “dangerous” to voice a particular opinion or dangerous to openly question other opinions, the public is undoubtedly being systematically manipulated.