Suppose you passionately believe something and you want to convince others to believe it too. You try to spread the word, but most people don’t think you or your ideas are credible. What do you do?
It’s a big problem for conspiracy theory advocates. Although belief in conspiracy theories is more common than you might think, far fewer people are dedicated to spreading them. And these people usually don’t have enough social standing to present themselves as authorities on the issues they want to talk about.
One solution is to form a group. This might make you look more believable if it gives people the impression you have moral authority or a deep understanding of the issues. So, if you and your friends are outraged that the moon landings were faked, you might set up “Engineers for Moon Truth” or “Mothers Against Lunar Lies.”
You could even set up a front group (a group set up to look independent that actually isn’t), and it would be a good idea to make it look like it came together naturally. This tactic comes from the world of PR. It’s sometimes called “astroturfing” because it’s the opposite of authentic grassroots organising. If you are lucky, journalists won’t look too closely and you could get some media coverage and maybe even recruit new members.
We’ve seen this happen in New Zealand. By 2022, Voices For Freedom was widely recognised as a source of anti-vaccine disinformation, so it faced a credibility problem. Then a new, supposedly independent group representing anti-mandate nurses called “Nurses For Freedom” popped up and managed to secure some sympathetic media coverage. But it turned out NFF wasn’t what it seemed. It was founded by a VFF convenor and had an overlapping membership. And the founder acknowledged that it had received support from VFF. By presenting itself as a separate, nursing-focussed group, NFF had managed to trick journalists into giving it airtime.
Of course, not all conspiracy minded organisations are front groups. But as the conspiracy theory advocacy scene is relatively small and marginal, the same influencers and activists tended to get involved in many different groups. They just wear different hats.
For example, New Zealand Lawyers Speaking Out With Science appears to have three members but this includes Outdoors and Freedom Party co-leader Sue Grey and former New Zealand First list candidate Kirsten Murfitt. The point of establishing NZLSOS was to give people the impression that their fringe theories were not just based on science, but that lots of lawyers had looked into it and found them convincing. So when influencers made statements like “NZLSOS is demanding an urgent investigation into possible nanotech in the vaccine” it was technically true, but what they weren’t telling you was that it was three people with no relevant scientific knowledge who had been convinced by a dubious source.
Another example is “New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science” a spin off from anti-lockdown group Covid Plan B. The name suggests they represent a lot of doctors, but as one wag pointed out, more practicing doctors are called “Sarah” than the 65 doctors who signed NZDSOS’ open letter about the vaccine. Few worked as GPs in the mainstream health system before the pandemic and none were hospital doctors dealing with the worst Covid-19 cases. For comparison, Doctors Stand Up For Vaccination’s open letter supporting the vaccine rollout got 4600 signatures in one week.
It’s hard to tell exactly who NZDSOS speak for as they don’t publish the names of those who’ve signed their declaration. As most doctors don’t, they’ve resorted to recruiting “health professionals” (currently 4528). They say this group includes nurses but also allied health professionals, so they are just as likely to be acupuncturists, massage therapists or hospital play specialists who have no particular claim to knowledge about infectious disease.
Unsurprisingly, NZDSOS has a questionable relationship with science. One is a virus denier and many endorse “functional” or “integrative” medicine, which purports to treat the “root causes” of sickness but has been criticised for being a trojan horse for pseudoscientific “alternative” health quackery. They promote unproven Covid-19 treatments and have suggested the vaccine makes people magnetic, contains self-assembling nanotechnology and is part of a “depopulation agenda”. NZDSOS member, Simon Thornley, published a paper in an antivax journal which made bogus claims Covid-19 vaccines cause miscarriages This is not true. The vaccine is recommended because it has been shown to be safe. Thornley was forced to retract the paper, but not before it was shared widely and his co-author had given a tearful speech at the ‘Hikoi for Truth’ event in Waitangi. The damage had already been done.
So why do people trust NZDSOS? Partly because they mix anti-vaccine misinformation and new world order conspiracy theories with accurate scientific and medical information and common sense health advice like “eat healthily and get enough sleep.” But they also trade on the prestige of the words “doctor” and “science” and the fact they have multiple members to appear more credible.
That’s the essence of their strategy: look bigger than you are, sound more knowledgeable than you are and exploit your professional status. We’re supposed to listen to doctors and scientists, aren’t we?
One benefit of setting up all these groups is that they can quote each other. Claims sound more persuasive when they are backed by a reference to a credible-sounding source. So it helps VFF if they can quote NFF or NZDSOS to buttress their views on vaccines, even if it’s really mostly the same group of people and the claim has no foundation.
It’s part of constructing a mirror-world which has the same kind of organisations as our own, but where conspiracy theories are dominant beliefs. These organisations are echo-chambers where influencers can share ideas without being reality-checked and recruits can find information that confirms their new beliefs when they follow the call to “do their own research”. Peer group pressure often does the rest.
