The Tradicat Fact Checking Method

 +

JMJ

 I've had some interesting in-person conversations lately regarding my perspective on:

• COVID-19: 
• Yes, I believe it is a pandemic and ...
  
• I am researching whether or not it is on the same order of magnitude as the 1918 pandemic.
  
• Morality of getting immunized
• Yes, it is moral with the appropriate conditions
• No, I don't care what ++Vigano and + Schneider say on the matter. I've done the research and they're wrong.
  
• Safety of the vaccines 
• NO, I don't believe that I will die in 15 to 21 months because of the vaccine.
  
• Efficacy of the vaccines
• Yes, I believe they evoke an immune response. 
• For the record the Moderna response was found to be greater than that of the Pfizer.

 What no one has asked is how I arrived at these perspectives. 

Tradiate mentioned that I should, for your benefit, outline how I approach these topics.

• Experience: I am familiar with the scientific process and environment.
  
• I have the benefit of decades of experience working in a science environment on medical devices with scientists, engineers, software developers, technologists and trades people.
• I have published my own research and also been author on other scientific papers.
• I am familiar with how scientific papers are structured and presented.  I've read hundreds of scientific papers in my career - dry reading but very necessary to try to build an understanding on a topic.
  
• Study: I am curious about many things, so I read and study things that interest me.
  
•  Regular readers of this blog know that I will do deep dives into topics that interest me to gain an understanding. In many cases I present my findings here on this blog.
• Right now I am very curious about comparing the 1918 Pandemic (Spanish Influenza) with the 2019 SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.   
• I will read the source material in order to draw my own conclusions.
• I have read a number of scientific documents on masks, vaccines, pandemics and pandemic responses.
  
• Media: In general I avoid all talking heads on YouTube etc because after numerous checks I have found them to be promoting their own FUD invoking narrative. This has created a new classification: Fud-Muckers.
• When a friend asks me to investigate or I come across an interesting article / video, my first step is to download the article or transcript of the video. 
• Time is too precious to waste on listening to someone with hair like Michael Voris drone on about how bad it is etc.  
• By downloading the text / transcript I can scan it for the important elements - such as their actual 'assertions' and any supporting information. These videos have a lot of hand waving and wringing so I go for the written word.
  
• I cross check the person speaking / author of the "Media Article" to see if they "should" know what they are talking about. 
• The internet is a breeding ground for snake-oil salesmen / women and the SARS-CoV-2 has created an exponential explosion.
• If the person doesn't have applicable credentials then I look for reputable information sources cited by the persons. If these are absent, they get an automatic fail because I have no confidence that they know what they are talking or writing about.
  
•  I look for any and all original articles that are referenced in the video or written article.
• Are the sources from reputable journals or organizations?
• I read the paper to see if I can understand the basic science and approach.
  
• What are the conclusions of the study?
• I compare the "Media Article" with the conclusions of the original
• Are the conclusions made in the original article or by the video personality consistent with those of the study?
•  If not, then in most cases the article is just added to recycle bin and I move on.  In some cases, I will save it for the basis of an article (one is in the hopper now).
• If yes, well then I have to adjust my assessment ... but [spoiler alert] ... in the cases that I have fact checked - not one has passed the test.

Fact-checking articles typically take about three hours of research and at least one hour to write up my findings.  Most of my articles on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic take at least one to two hours and many could use more editing.

So, as you can see, this process takes time and time is a scarce commodity.  

Once I have satisfied myself on a topic I don't keep searching, unless new verifiable information is brought forward in one of my scans. 

So there you have it, I hope this helps people to understand that my conclusions are based on a reasoned process following Catholic principles. To change my mind, I need facts and references to original research, not hand wringing or waving. 

Nota Bene: Not all comments are of the hand wringing / waving nature. 

P^3