# data[].attributes.headline
Post #1 Psuedoscience watchlist : Use of scientific-sounding language that is meaningless 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #1 Psuedoscience watchlist : Use of scientific-sounding language that is meaningless 

# data[].attributes.body
Use Of Scientific-Sounding Language That Is Meaningless Definition: Bioenergetic Quantum Resonance Therapy (BQRT) is a pseudoscientific method that claims to restore health by employing ambiguous notions from quantum physics and bioenergetics. It suggests that exposing the body to specific frequencies or vibrations can balance energy fields and enhance well-being, despite a lack of scientific proof.

Connection: BQRT uses scientific-sounding terminology to look acceptable, but its assertions are not supported by genuine scientific research. By capitalizing on people's interest in quantum physics and alternative medicine, BQRT draws followers who may be deceived by its pseudoscientific claims. It demonstrates how the abuse of scientific terminology may generate the appearance of credibility in the field of alternative medicines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Celtron: Wonder tool for Physiotherapists

Frequently Asked Questions

Quantum Resonance Therapy Centers

Physio Zone - Dr Chintan Bhindora

Sai Ambience, 4th Floor, Kunal Icon Rd, Pimple Saudagar, Pune-411027
Directions

Arpit Physiotherapy Centre - Dr Sanjay Rajhans

63, Vidya Vihar Colony, Pratap Nagar, Nagpur - 440022
Directions

Aaroggyam Physiotherapy - Dr Sandeep Kadlag

Azad Chowk Anjali Colony, Pune - Nashik Hwy, Orange Corner, Sangamner, Maharashtra 422605
Directions

Shree Fit Care & Cure - Dr Mukesh Vyas

St Alphonso road, near Medlife hospital, Vijay Nagar, Kalewadi, Pune-411017
Directions

Dr Akshay Mahavir Bardiya

Paradise Plaza, 2nd Floor, Above Stile Men Fashion, Opp Tandel Masjid, Camp, Pune-411001
Directions

Heramb Physiotherapy Clinic - Dr Vishnu Mankar

302 Goodwill square, Near Canara bank, Dhanori, third floor, Pune - 411015
Directions

Physio & Wellness Clinic - Dr Sumit Agarwal

Office No.106, 1st Floor, Goodwill Square, Dhanori Road, Dhanori, Pune - 411015
Directions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Quantum Resonance Therapy - For Early Recovery And Rehab

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Quantum Resonance therapy is an innovative physiotherapy device for better clinical results and achieving patient satisfaction. Know more.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #2 Psuedoscience watchlist :  Results can’t be reproduced or verified

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #2 Psuedoscience watchlist :  Results can’t be reproduced or verified

# data[].attributes.body
Results Can’t be Reproduced Or Verified Definition: The Unverifiable Phenomena Registry includes pseudoscientific activities or claims whose outcomes cannot be duplicated or confirmed using trustworthy scientific procedures.

Connection: It identifies cases in which alleged phenomena or therapies fail to survive scrutiny under controlled settings. These procedures frequently rely on anecdotal evidence or selective reporting, which prevents independent verification. Examples include paranormal occurrences, alternative medicine techniques, and psychic experiences. Recognizing such situations, acts as a warning against adopting ideas or behaviours that lack scientific backing, highlighting the necessity of reproducibility and verification in separating real scientific investigation from pseudoscientific assertions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Read 'Secret' memo for Trudeau on unidentified object shot down over Yukon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was provided a classified memo on 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena' in February, CTV News has learned.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #3 Psuedoscience watchlist :  Money is often involved 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #3 Psuedoscience watchlist :  Money is often involved 

# data[].attributes.body
Money Is Often Involved Definition: The behaviours or beliefs in pseudoscience that seek financial advantage, typically at the price of scientific integrity.

Connection: It focuses on detecting pseudoscientific endeavours that include monetary transactions, such as the selling of useless health products, mystical services, or dubious technology devices. In some circumstances, profit objectives may encourage exaggeration, evidence distortion, or exploitation of vulnerable persons seeking remedies. The presence of money can create a conflict of interest, preventing impartial evaluation and promoting incorrect claims. By highlighting the role of financial incentives, encourages skepticism and critical examination of pseudoscientific claims, raising awareness of the possible problems connected with profit-driven agendas in research and alternative practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

As of now, the COVID-19 pandemic has become uncontrolled and is spreading widely throughout the world. Additionally, new variants of the mutated viral variants have been found in some countries that are more dangerous than the original strain. Even vaccines cannot produce complete protective immunity against the newer strains of SARS-CoV-2. Due to such a dreadful situation, lots of fear and depression have been created among the public. People are looking for the treatment of the disease at any cost and there is a race in the market to provide treatment and make money, whether it is effective or not! In such a condition, many fraud products, remedies, and myths have come into the market, which is falsely claimed to be effective for the disease and can harm the patients. Hence, FDA has banned such products and remedies. In this review, we have compiled all such fraudulent and pseudosciences identified for COVID-19. Currently, in the pandemic time, health agencies are approving the repurposed medicines based on the small-scale clinical data for emergency uses that become ineffective (most of the cases) after large randomized clinical studies. Proper vigilance strategies need to be defined by the regulatory agencies of the nation and routine awareness programs shall be arranged for educating the people and healthcare workers on routine updates.

Keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Vaccine, Fraudulent product, Pseudoscience, Myth

Introduction

The novel coronavirus outbreak first started in the Wuhan Huanan seafood market. It led to the closing of the market on the 1 st of January 2020 for environmental sanitation and disinfection (Ilyas et al. 2020). The onset of COVID-19 in December 2019 was suspected to be the epicenter of this pandemic and has spread substantially infecting over 532 million people worldwide and with over 6.3 million deaths as of June 2022. Before this outbreak, coronavirus was not considered highly pathogenic to humans until the emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a recombined form of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) that was first observed when unexplained pneumonia cases were noted in China (Chavda et al. 2021f, b).

The SARS-CoV-2 that caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is closely related to SARS-CoV as well as the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) (Cui 2019; Zhou et al. 2020). Currently, the virus has undergone substantial alterations and mutations, resulting in the formation of several strains. Each strain differs in terms of virulence, disease severity, and inflammatory reactions. The alpha variant (B.1.1.7), beta variant (B.1.351), gamma variant (P.1), and delta variant (B.1.617.2) are the variant of concerns (VOCs) defined by the world health organization (WHO) with their origin from London, South Africa, Brazil, and India respectively (Harvey et al. 2021; Chavda et al. 2022d). The extensively mutated Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) is the current VOC with less severe disease, immune evasion, and high transmissibility (Chavda and Apostolopoulos 2022a, b).

COVID-19 is a fast-spreading disease with symptoms ranging from mild and moderate to even severe one. Home isolation along with symptomatic treatment in case of mild symptoms is required. Whereas in case of severe symptoms, hospitalization and medical attention are needed. Preliminary pandemic research shows that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions are not asymptomatic throughout the course of illness and that transmission by presymptomatic individuals accounts for around 40-60% of transmission, while asymptomatic cases account for 15% of transmission (Ramanan et al. 2020; Krishnan et al. 2022). The "WHO Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline" includes data about the treatment, clinical management, and approved drugs for COVID-19 management. A list of approved anti-viral, anti-allergens, therapies such as convalescent plasma therapy, etc. are mentioned, but none of them has proven to be 100% effective in treatment (Basu et al. 2022; Chavda et al. 2022c). The recently developed vaccines have proved to be effective to some extent against the emerging variants (Chavda and Apostolopoulos 2021; Chavda et al. 2021e, a, c, d). Because of the mutations, the vaccines are also not 100% effective (as all the vaccines are designed based on viral S protein); this is the reason people believe the pseudoscience data and are not confident in taking vaccines (Nohynek and Wilder-Smith 2022). But the vaccines have shown effect in a very less time and now booster doses have also come, which is preventing the infection in many individuals (Chavda and Apostolopoulos 2022a). Due to the short development period and the novelty of the chosen technology, these vaccines will be launched with several unsolved difficulties that will only be rectified as time passes. Lastly, we assess that, in the long term, many vaccines will be required to provide fair worldwide access, protection of varied populations, and immunization against virus variations.

Communities can effectively prevent the spread of COVID-19 via the use of lockdowns. Significant lockdown delays result in a huge rise in cumulative case numbers. Consequently, the timing of the lockdown relative to the number of cases is an essential factor in limiting the pandemic in communities (Fasano et al. 2021; Huang et al. 2021). Along with the spread of the virus, there has been a rise in misbelieves, fake news, conspiracy theories, and suspicion around it. "5G cellular technology gave rise to Coronavirus" (Ahmed et al. 2020), "Bill Gates being the mastermind behind the virus to suppress humanity by implementing a global control" (Shahsavari et al. 2020), "Deliberate leaking of the modified virus to infect humans from the Wuhan research facility," and "The Wuhan Lab-leak" (Lawton 2021) are some of the prevailing theories to name a few. The biggest challenge with these flourishing conspiracy theories is that it is often backed by social and political identities (Douglas 2021). Social movements like antimaskers, antivaccine activists, and "QAnon" supporters have the potential for violent activity. They also demonstrate a reluctance to engage in preventive measures for the spread of the virus (Douglas 2021).

The objective of this review is to cover all the possible pseudoscience data, myths, false home remedies, and fake social media messages that are spreading and misleading people. We have also attempted to cover the scientific facts that could prove the myths wrong and mentioned some suggestions and facts that would lead people in the correct direction and make them ready for the future. This work is targeted at a large audience to educate those regarding misconceptions and myths prevailing in society with a scientific explanation around it.

Methodology

This is a narrative review work. However, we have provided our search strategies that will help readers better understand the concepts and our conclusions. The main focus of the article is to identify the spread of pseudoscience amongst the people related to the COVID-19 virus and its infection. Other than that, we have also focused on the myths, home remedies, social media-related fake messages, and vaccine hesitancy that are spread and believed by people. The methodology for the article starts with searching on major databases like Google Scholar, Springer, Pubmed, Web of Science, and Scopus articles, through different keywords. The keywords searched were "Pseudoscience AND Covid-19," "social media AND Covid-19," "Twitter AND Covid-19," "Whatsapp AND Covid-19," and "Fraudulent products for Covid-19," "Myths and home remedies AND Covid-19," and "Vaccine hesitancy." The peer-reviewed, English language, and full-text articles were included while the other language and non-accessible articles were excluded from the paper. The facts, medical remedies, and COVID-19 official data are all extracted from the official websites of WHO and CDC. We have also referred to some of the websites to identify the prevailing pseudoscience materials via social media. The article also gives facts and suggestions which can be utilized and prepare us for future pandemic situations.

Theoretical framework

As mentioned by WHO on their site, the mode of transmission of the virus was in a droplet form. Droplet transmission occurs when a person is in contact with another infected person within a 1-m distance (Johansson et al. 2021). The infected person may show no symptoms or show symptoms like coughing or sneezing, so there is a risk that the droplets might spread through the mouth or nose, and that is the reason why masks were implemented and were compulsory (Frederick et al. 2021). The transmission may also occur by coming in contact with the surfaces or objects used by the infected person; this is called fomite transmission and so disinfecting the surfaces and objects thoroughly went necessary (Goldman 2020). Another mode is airborne transmission, which occurs when there is the dissemination of droplet nuclei (aerosols) that remain infectious when suspended in air over long distances and time. This transmission of SARS-COV-2 can occur during medical procedures using aerosols.

The R 0 value is the reproduction ratio or rate, which is an epidemiological metric used to measure the transmissibility of infectious agents. Although the infectivity and duration of infection of a pathogen are biological constants, R 0 depends on this parameter because of the varying degrees of human interaction. This explains the importance of social distance during the COVID 19 pandemic. Also, note that R 0 for COVID 19 is higher than R 0 for SARS and MERS (Hu et al. 2021). The R 0 range in India for SARS-COV-2 was 2-2.5. The correct ratio of population that must have a vaccination to prevent the epidemic is given a 1-1 / R0- herd immunity threshold (Gupta et al. 2021). To control the infection and decrease the R 0 rate, vaccination of the public is important. Vaccinations play a crucial role in decreasing the number of cases and have health benefits for patients. The vaccination drives are now available for everyone above 18 years and so the more the number of people have been vaccinated the less the spread of infection.

It is important to note that during this COVID-19 pandemic period, there have been many misconceptions, misunderstandings, and whatnot that have made people do many silly things. Further, this review focuses on all these things and justifies the same.

The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

As every coin has two sides, there have been positive as well as negative repercussions. An increase in people's sense of community and trust along with presenting an unparalleled challenge to food systems, global economy, and mental health has put millions of lives at risk. This has largely affected poorly protected and low-paid jobs, older workers, and migrants (Serafini et al. 2020). Figure 1 depicts the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health. Marital status, age, education, living with other individuals, and having kids were not said to be related to psychological outcomes (Rodríguez-Rey et al. 2020). Health-care personnel were more stigmatized than the public.

Impact on food and nutrition

Many people lost their jobs during the lockdown. For many of them, no income means no food. Along with trade restrictions and border closures, farmers were unable to access the marketplace, and trade their produced goods, which affected the global food chain supply. This mainly affected low-income countries, marginalized populations, small-scale farmers, and indigenous peoples (Aday and Aday 2020; Carducci et al. 2021).

Lockdown has affected the global economy. Industries such as manufacturing, tourism, hospitality, retail, and small & medium enterprises experienced a standstill. The pandemic has decimated jobs and placed millions of livelihoods at risk (Kaushal and Srivastava 2021).

Mental health and wellbeing

COVID-19 has also had a significant influence on human behavior by raising anxiety/depression following the lockup and signaling longer-term mental health concerns (Serafini et al. 2020; Santomauro et al. 2021). Health emergencies may also affect individuals and communities through isolation, stigma, job insecurity, or inadequate resources for medical response (Simon et al. 2020). Psychological imbalance of people with many of them suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anger, annoyance, fear, frustration, guilt, helplessness, isolation, loneliness, nervousness, sadness, worry, and were having less happiness (Brooks et al. 2020). These all the outcomes have a major impact on mental health (Serafini et al. 2020). Figure 2 talks about how the four waves of COVID-19 infection have affected health.

Worries about financial security, home life, and the future

The lockdown has made people stay in their homes for longer periods; this has increased the cases of domestic violence and suicides which have eventually affected mental health (Banerjee et al. 2021). Other than this, people have also lost their jobs; many small- and large-scale companies have been shut down and have removed many of their employees. Some of the people were also stuck at the work locations for several months as traveling was also banned. The children were affected because the schools were closed and they remained inside the house (Santomauro et al. 2021). The biggest loss was losing the close ones and not even meeting them once before dying. Because of the offices, being closed or shutting down, many have not received their salary and many got a cut in it. The pandemic has an impact on both the lower class and higher-class people. The migrant workers who lived on their daily-based job were out of the job and so had no money to eat also. These all factors have a great impact on individuals' future (Harper et al. 2020).

The dissemination of misinformation and belief system

The WHO labelled COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, because of the steady rise in cases (Asselah et al. 2021). During a pandemic, where physical contact and communication were hindered, the only source of information became "Media." People started to believe what they see on various news platforms. The belief system spread the fear in different countries so strongly that any piece of information was considered true. Hence, it was tough to distinguish between authentic and forged news. In an article of Springer nature, Heidi Larson stated, "the era full of digitally enabled grander outbreak due to emotional contagion" (Larson 2018). A lack of critical thinking and appropriate information, as well as the use of familiarity and source heuristics, is associated with poor truth discerning. In addition, there is a wide gap between what individuals think and what they post on social media, which is mostly due to inattention rather than deliberate dissemination of false information (Pennycook et al. 2021). Effective interventions may encourage social media users to consider truthfulness and can use crowdsourced veracity ratings to enhance social media ranking algorithms (Pennycook and Rand 2021).

Social media is the largest source to disseminate the information and a promising tool that served throughout the pandemic. It is a prodigious tool if the shared information is evidence-based, rather than being false and rumored. The year 2019 to 2021, when the coronavirus outbreak astonished the whole world, may perhaps be termed as a year of "Infodemic" wherein a whirlwind of misinformation got full media coverage. The famous social media platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, etc., where millions of people update and share information daily, a cluttered handful of foraged information. (Kunguma 2021). This phase of "infodemic" is proven through previous studies that determined the maximum number of people to share false news rather than evidence-based information (Orso et al. 2020). A 2-day analytical survey of Twitter on the 6 th and 7 th February of 2021 displayed a thousand tweets that circulated false information (Pulido et al. 2020).

As we are aware, the pandemic hit hard on Italy (the most affected city with many cases); a quantitative survey was carried out to acknowledge the fake news and the results were contumacious. The results specified that health and digital literacy should be upgraded and that the well-known media networks must consecutively work before broadcasting any news. These changes will help in combatting fear and stress (Moscadelli et al. 2020). The urge to spread the news comes from a lure mounted by social media in a way that focuses more on the factors rather than the accuracy of the content. Although a person might not think to forward any such news on social platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, or Twitter, they aimlessly do so because the news is framed in an attractive manner (Pennycook et al. 2020). Recently, the WHO informed us about the new variant of coronavirus discovered in South Africa on 24 November 2021. Social media created a hue of panic with all sorts of fortified claims and rumors (Apuke and Omar 2021). India Today reported that the media pushed the panic button by reporting the new variant to be deadlier than the all-known variants and stating that it cannot be detected by RT-PCR tests. All sorts of Facebook posts started to surface, stating that the virus is not domicile only to the nasal portion, rather it infected the lungs directly (Kundu 2021). Thus, social media played a major role in the transmission of fear.

The right implementation of any information is a key to decluttering the misinformation with a good paradigm shift. Social media is the center of attraction during COVID times that could be utilized for a good cause, i.e., by spreading scientific information worldwide (Cinelli et al. 2020). In times so grim, the spread of quality scientific and evidence-based information is needed worldwide. There is a report of remarkable support of social media in spreading awareness regarding the importance of vaccination. Although there is anti-vaccine propaganda dispersed around, social media had played a keen role to raise the voice against the issue. This approach can support scientific evidence, spread awareness, and save millions of health around the world (Rzymski et al. 2021).

As it is said, "there is no age for learning, learning can happen anytime." Thus, when it comes to fake news, a person can self-help and self-detect nuances. In an article, a self-learning semi-supervised network was designed with a confidence layer of the network that enables the correct results wherein a fake news net dataset was utilized for accuracy. A well-established way of decluttering the fake news and structuring the algorithm in such a way that it only commutes the positive, i.e., genuine news (Li et al. 2021).

Different countries tackled the mishap of fake news accordingly. In a report from Peru, the ministry insisted to spread no misinformation. They also had 2-4 years of a prison sentence for any person going against the law and contributing to upraising the false rumors, disturbing the tranquillity of the citizens (Charles et al. 2021).

According to a survey-based study in November 2021, using the KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor, the belief in misinformation largely depended on the news platform people chose to watch daily. The public who watched CNN, MSNBC, network news, NPR, and local television had no belief in any of the eight false statements, while a small portion about 11 to 16% was mostly unsure about at least four of the eight false statements. It is shocking to know that those who watched leading news and new sources were inclined to believe fabricated information easily (Palosky 2021). Figure 3 gives the assessment of the trust in news channels shaping the belief in false statements.

The series of misinformation is not just limited to highly rated social networks. Nowadays, new religious agendas are seen in India regarding coronavirus infection. It is established that faith in religiosity is directly proportional to the high trust in misinformation (Al-Zaman 2021). In a survey, religious scriptures were used to dissolve the belief system built on myths. Remarkable results were noted as people reduced the uptake of false information. If a particular religious dissonance is targeted, it will benefit in reducing the long-fought beliefs. Although such a task is tedious to carry out in India (a country of diverse religious norms), thorough knowledge of religion and information that is to be corrected should be established beforehand (Piwko 2021). Information from MENA (the Middle East & North Africa) region had a similar issue, where religion had a lasting impact during the COVID time (Alimardani and Elswah 2020). The circulation of false hadith and viral religious advice was way far more contagious than the infection itself. According to some news by BBC Persian in 2020, the ministry of Iran declared no serious threat of COVID-19. There was a member of Iran's Assembly of Experts, Ayatollah Mohammad Mehdi Mirbaqeri, actively commenting his viewpoints on online platforms regarding lockdown or social distancing, demanding it to be unnecessary in comparison to previous epidemics (Alimardani and Elswah 2020). Thus, science and medicine are highly questioned due to such statements from Iran's religious elite. A similar situation was with Ayatollah Tabrizian, formally known as the "Father of Islamic Medicine"-rejecting global science, as the coronavirus cases increased in Iran, he advised his followers to swab their anuses with a cotton dipped in violet oil. Even this remedy went viral on his telegram channel, the Persian language social platform. Such examples favor augmenting Islamophobia. The case seems to worsen as telegram did not support much to remove such content as the pandemic was increasing. The alternative to YouTube in Iran was Iranian YouTube-Aparat, where content moderation rules were regulated according to Iran censorship rules, leaving such foul remedies online for millions of people to practice and be unchecked for life (Alimardani and Elswah 2020).

Data from a cross-sectional study in July-August 2020, randomly 1052 subjects were selected from using their mobile databases and made to respond to an anonymous structured questionnaire. The response rate was 40%, wherein 89% of participants believed COVID-19 was a threat, 52% were likely to get vaccinated, 19.7% were exposed to fake news often, and 63% were exposed sometimes (the reason which was platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp). The overall study described the trust in social media and delivered the exposure to fake news in Lebanon. This event highlighted the vaccination intent of the public (Ghaddar et al. 2022). The spread of misinformation is not due to sub-standard practices of media rather it is poor practices (Ali 2020). This can be justified by an example of local healthcare crises covered by Wojczewski et.al. in Ugandan newspapers, the approach was qualitative, wherein researchers selected two top newspapers in Uganda. They then compare the data and concluded that, although there were several articles published, they attributed issues with the healthcare system too weak governmental working, corruption, and lack of attention to the healthcare system. All the newspaper did was targeted the issue, again making it politically involved and leaving behind the important concern at hand, i.e., health care (Wojczewski et al. 2015). The misinformation can be settled by a few of the tricks and strategies shared by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The key is the communication of authentic information, filling and addressing information gaps, and providing evidence to support the truth. Also, not forget the FWFF, i.e., Fact, Warning, Fallacy (Unintentional/Intentional), and Fact check (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases 2021).

The information from social media-initiated panic among people and contaminated their belief system. The above data of different countries tell us that social media has given the most negative impact and so we should be careful when believing the fake messages. We should also concern with the health professionals like doctors and always check the information on the official sites of WHO, CDSCO, CDC, and other countries' specific regulatory bodies.

Most harmful was the information regarding false drugs on the market, home remedies that claimed to cure COVID-19, and believing that the hospital is more of a death bed than a healthcare center (Anwar et al. 2020; Naeem et al. 2021). During the COVID times, many such myths, medicines, and home remedies surfaced that claimed to cure COVID-19 symptoms. Table ​Table1 1 mentions the same (Park et al. 2020; Atehortua and Patino 2021; Chen et al. 2022). From the Table ​Table1, 1 , it is evident that the people that do not have any standard evidence believe many myths, home remedies, and medical claims. Therefore, before trusting on any such myths and consuming the false products ask health care professionals and take suggestions from them. Many of such myths, herbal home remedies, and medicinal claims as a part of drug repurposing were published in peer-reviewed journals; however, they lack proper clinical pieces of evidence; most of them are published with only in vitro studies while those which are published with in vivo studies are with limited enrolment. Some were found useful initially and later on based on the large clinical study they found ineffective in the COVID-19 management like chloroquine (Kashour et al. 2021), ivermectin (Reis et al. 2022), etc.

Table 1

Sr. no

Myths

Home remedies

Medicinal claims

1

Health supplement myth:

Health supplement Remedy:

Health supplement medicinal claims:

* Vitamin D: High doses of Vitamin D are very harmful as it is not water-soluble, thus, elimination is not possible as it gets stored in fatty tissues and can lead to toxicity (Marcinowska-Suchowierska et al. 2018)

* Silver solution or Colloidal silver: Generally, purchased as a dietary supplement. People should understand silver is not an essential mineral and can be way far dangerous to health (Chung et al. 2010). Thus, DTC & FDA issued a warning letter stating, "The FDA considers the sale and promotion of fraudulent COVID-19 products to be a threat to public health"

* Vitamins Cure COVID-19: There is no such guidance available that confirms the use of multivitamins in curing the disease

( https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters)

* Vitamin D can prevent as well as treat COVID-19 & its symptoms

* Eat mushrooms and fortified foods, try UV treatment, and consume more see food

( https://www.healthline.com)

* The deficiency of Vitamin D in the Black and Asian population globally can increase their chances to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 (Weir et al. 2020)

2

Vaccination Myth (Cerda and García 2021):

Food Remedy in place of vaccines:

Medicinal claims (Already in use to treat other diseases):

* Chloroquine: A well-known anti-malarial agent is hazardous when ingested without the Dr consent. According to a report, after ingestion of chloroquine by a couple, the husband died, and the wife was in a critical condition (Doyno et al. 2020)

* Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine: The clinical trial data officially confirmed that these medicines have little to no impact on illness, hospitalization, or death (Gasmi et al. 2021)

* Dexamethasone for all infected patients? It is suggested by WHO, not to use this agent generally and save it for patients who are in the utmost care and need (The RECOVERY Collaborative Group 2020; Inchingolo et al. 2021)

* Intake of alkaline food will eliminate the virus from the body without having a vaccine (Dunn 2021)

* The addition of pepper in the meal will not prevent/treat or cure getting sick due to infection without having a vaccine (Q&A 2021)

* Honey can cure the COVID-19 symptoms (Hossain et al. 2020)

* A Sri Lankan drink recently got viral, claiming to cure the symptoms of the virus on Facebook. It was confirmed afterward that the drink has serious complications, and it is harmful to the health

* Vaccination can cause infertility

* Mask can be put off once vaccinated

3

The myth related to previous diseases & Hygiene:

Ayurvedic Remedies related to previous diseases & Hygiene (Steam, naturally acting agents & rinses):

The medical claim related to previous diseases & Hygiene

* Pneumonia Vaccine: The false rumors of the pneumonia vaccine were spread, that it could cure the COVID infection. As the virus strain is completely different, a specific vaccine is required to fight this completely new strain of the virus. ( https://www.cdc.gov/pneumonia/prevention.html)

* Ivermectin: The drug is used to prevent parasitic infections in animals, and it is not a drug to treat viruses and has not been approved yet by FDA to treat or prevent COVID-19 (Caly et al. 2020)

* Taking steam along with certain traditional herbs would paralyze the virus (Gowrishankar et al. 2021)

* Eating garlic prevents coronavirus infection: Although it has anti-microbial properties, there is no such evidence (Khubber et al. 2020)

* Rinsing the nose with saline solution regularly can prevent the infection: Evidence suggests it can help you recover from the common cold but not the coronavirus infection (Casale et al. 2020)

* Turmeric can prevent & cure covid (Rattis et al. 2021). Although turmeric has anti-inflammatory, it has no role in treating the infection

* The coronavirus infection is transmitted through mosquitoes (Huang et al. 2020)

* Wearing gloves replace cleaning hands and will keep the hygiene ( https://www.osfhealthcare.org)

* Touching the communal bottle of sanitizer will most likely infect the person (Ghafoor et al. 2021)

* The virus is transmitted through swimming (Yaacoub et al. 2021)

4

Climate, temperature, environment & phototherapy related myths:

Medicinal plants & false remedies:

* The fruit of Datura was falsely promoted, claiming it to treat coronavirus infection in all weather conditions

* COVID-19 is transmitted in a cold climate and not in a hot or humid climate (Heibati et al. 2021)

* UV bulbs that are used for disinfecting can kill coronavirus on our bodies (Mackenzie 2020)

* The likelihood of spreading of infection is very low

* Drinking Methanol/Ethanol or Bleach: These substances are poisons and are not intended to be consumed. Drinking these agents causes disability and death. They have no use in treating coronavirus

Fraudulent health claims

With the upraise in COVID-19 cases during the peak of the pandemic, rumors with numerous claims, fear, conspiracy theories, and health claims with the fraud news started to resurface (Grimes 2021). COVID-19 was a disease full of uncertainty, and this ambiguity created curiosity. People started to believe false news, took home remedies (impacting health severely), and believed fraudulent health claims. The fraudulent health claims are majorly due to pseudoscientific health therapies (Callaghan 2019). Generally, this practice promoted fake tests and cures. Homeopathy, alternative medicine, herbal medicine, and ancient quackery are popular and well-promoted fraudulent practices that promise to heal infections, eradicate viruses from the body, and increase/boost a person's immunity (Jayawardena et al. 2020). The fake products in the market might contain adulterated ingredients rather than the one claimed on the package with the desired quantity mentioned or they might not contain any such promised ingredients at all. The diversity of products on the internet increased as the pandemic leaped forward.

This information is intended to spread awareness by pointing out the misleading fraudulent products that might still be sold in the market and are a great threat to common beings. There are so many manufacturers claiming to provide self-diagnostic kits online. Currently, FDA had sent countless warnings letters to such manufacturers (Keni et al. 2020). One such example is Bodysphere, which sold coronavirus antibody detecting kits, claiming to diagnose and cure the infection. Practically, such devices should not be used as they have no authorization from the FDA.

The rising myth affected public actions in general, in a YouTube video from the Philippines the hand sanitizer prepared using rum, bleach, and fabric softener went viral and promoted to the point that, a statement was released from the Integrated Chemists of the Philippines (ICP), "such ingredients when mixed produces a very noxious substance i.e., chloroform and it is dangerous" (ICP 2020). The ostensibly increasing myths regarding nasal rinsing products, various inhalants, and gargling products thrive in the market. The compounds like 0.5-3% hydrogen peroxide nebulizers are claimed to cure coronavirus infection and saltwater gargles are claimed to kill the virus (de Toledo Telles-Araujo et al. 2020; Panta et al. 2021). The people do not understand the severity of the ongoing pandemic and use them in ways that are insanely dangerous and harmful in every facet. The myths also include temperature, warmer temperature kills the virus, and that virus could not sustain in such temperatures and cold temperatures are favorable or vice versa. This even continued with the UV-radiation; people believed that UV exposure could cure a person and would kill a virus in the body (Colunga Biancatelli et al. 2020; Mackenzie 2020). From fake kits in the market to holding breathing for 10 s are not the diagnostic options to rely upon. These kinds of beliefs are a real stressor for scientists relying on scientific evidence (Fleming 2020). Naeem and Caulfield stated "The fight against pseudoscience is weakened if trusted medical institutions condemn an evidence-free practice in one context and legitimize it in another. We need good science all the time, but particularly during disasters." (Naeem et al. 2021).

These false claims have increased the demand for plant and animal parts, claiming as an effective treatment option. The parts of endangered species like a rhino (horn), tiger (bones), and rare orchids came into the highlight, explaining the urge to promote the use of these agents that suscept a human subject towards fraudulent health claims (Macfarlane 2020). Similarly, in a search of public media in Europe, North America, New Zealand, and Australia, misinformation regarding claims of chiropractic treatment to increase immunity was highlighted. Any such scientific references towards this condition and health implications were missing and clinical effectiveness was spurious. This is a major health issue; these claims when posted on social media surely create bizarre outcomes, especially when people start to practice them on regular basis without taking any consent of the health practitioner (Axén et al. 2020). Amidst the resurfacing of such delusional information, pharmacists played a major role in the pandemic to spread awareness. As pharmacy is a major source of local dispensing, every type of person visits the pharmacy to take their medications. Thus, pharmacist should provide education and focus on patient safety and public health. They not only educated about the medication but also helped to educate the non-vaccinated community, briefed on the safety of generic medicines. These health care providers transmit the information in local friendly linguistic forms and make it understandable (Marwitz 2021). As this pandemic continues, so does the emphasis on health decisions to be made should be clarified and made based on scientific and public-based evidence. The restorative approach should be adopted by the journals and health care news, focusing on core scientific truth and data that are valid. Lastly, public education and community settings for a better understanding of ongoing health hazards, disease risks, how infectious diseases are a threat, and why vaccination is important in the long run should be accentuated (Cheema et al. 2020).

Fraudulent products for COVID-19

The COVID times entertained not only fake news but also fraudulent products, leading to severe health impacts (Rocha et al. 2021). The manufacturing and selling of substandard and falsified products that include diagnostic kits, infection preventive medicines, etc. date to the time of previous pandemics. It is not something new in the market. The measures were taken then, and measures are applied now but the health impact is severe and dangerous (Bauchner et al. 2020). According to an estimation by WHO, about 10.5% of medicines worldwide are substandard and falsified (SF) and the percentage is higher in low and middle-income countries. Africa consists of 18.7% of SF, Asians had a prevalence of 13.7% of SF, and 14.4% were found in other regions (Borse et al. 2021).

Such fraudulent products flooded the market when there was a scarcity of effective vaccines and cures. Hence, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter for numerous such websites between March 2020 to July 2020. It was estimated that around 3,139 applications were issued amongst which a fair share was focused on COVID-19-related drugs, devices, biologics, and dietary supplements. In the process, FDA successfully highlighted the blatant and potentially harmful quackery of the vendors across the globe (Bramstedt 2021).

In a survey carried out by Jay P. Kennedy et al., they reported the experience of over 2200 American adults with COVID-19-related frauds to understand the fraud targeting and victimizations (Kennedy et al. 2021). Many herbal medicines are being supportive alone for the treatment of coronavirus infection. In a survey, by Damaris Silveira et al., participants with mild to moderate symptoms, mostly adults, were evaluated to assess the role of herbal medicines as an adjuvant given alongside paracetamol, ibuprofen, and codeine (Silveira et al. 2020). A total of 39 herbal medicines were studied, the ones which are commonly known by everyone. The results concluded that out of 39 herbal medicines, 5 had a positive outcome as an adjuvant, promising was rest 12 species and rest were unknown. Thus, considering the clinical aspects, these agents will not work individually and case studies like these will help to spread awareness regarding common herbal agents used as a medicine, and their false aims on behalf of dangerous infections like coronavirus (Silveira et al. 2020).

The scenario of COVID was full of anxiety, fear, and depression, making the loss of human life an eminent part. Hence, people started to explore all possible options, trying to avoid the infection. Amidst all of this, social media played a major role in spreading information and selling products on websites that claimed to have the ability to cure coronavirus infection (Ahmad and Murad 2020; Anwar et al. 2020). As the situation got out of hand, on 20 March 2020, the consumer protection (CPC) authorities of the Member States issued a CPC on the scams that were mostly reported, and on 23 March 2020, the Commissioner of Justice and Consumer Didier Reynders asked to various online product-selling websites, i.e., Amazon, eBay, etc., to remove such products. The enforcement led to the removal of hundreds of millions of listings worldwide (Bavel et al. 2020). The first news of fraud broke in when counterfeit coronavirus kits were seen at Chicago's International Airport. The kits not only consisted of coronavirus kits but also meningitis and salmonella. They were then seized by the FDA (Di Crosta et al. 2021). Even reports of falsifying the vaccination certificates were recently unveiled (Deguma and Deguma 2021). According to the Federal trade commissioner, a consumer loss of $500 million was estimated from 2020 to 2021 due to fraudulent products in the market in COVID times. Almost 558,000 complaints are received by the agency related to frauds since 2020. The final amount of loss aggregated was $501 million on July 22. Therefore, here is a list of fraudulent COVID-19 products that swamped the market, disrupted the economy, and risked human health (Table ​(Table2 2 ).

Table 2

Sr.No

Product name

Company

False claim

Justification

1
Rhinodol CBD nasal spray products
New Leaf Pharmaceuticals, LLC

Pain & inflammation

Nervousness (anxiety)

Sleeplessness

Myalgia Congestion (MARCS-CMS 609744)

"The Rhinodol CBD was claimed to be an unapproved new drug under section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 355(a). Also, delivery to interstate commerce of unapproved drugs violates 301(d) of FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 331(d) and misbranded drugs under section 502(f)(1) of FD&C Act, 21U.S.C. 352(f)(1)."

2

Flu Immune Drops

L-Lysine

Lysine Extra

Monolaurin

Riverstone LLC

Flu Immune Drops: The product can mitigate, diagnose, treat, prevent & cure COVID-19

L-Lysine &Lysine Extra: Improve immune response and act as an anti-viral agent

Monolaurin: Immune support
(MARCS-CMS 608645)
"The FDA reviewed the products and stated that these come under unapproved new drugs and violate section 505(a) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 355(a). As these products are misbranded, they come under section 502 of FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 352, and the delivery for introduction into interstate commerce is prohibited under 301(a) and (d) section of FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 331 (a) and (d)."

3

Rowpar Pharmaceuticals

Treat Covid-19 infection

Closys Rinse: Eliminate the virus up to 98.4% in 30 s

Closys Oral Spray: Eliminate the viral load up to 98.4% in 30 s
(MARCS-CMS 611759)
"The products violate section 505(a) of FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 355(a). They are Misbranded drugs under section 502 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 352. Delivery into interstate commerce is prohibited under section 301(a) and (d) of FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 331 (a) and (d)."

4

Pro Breath MD, LLC dba Dentist Select and OraCare

"The products violate section 505(a) of FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 355(a). They are Misbranded drugs under section 502 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 352. Delivery into interstate commerce is prohibited under section 301(a) and (d) of FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 331 (a) and (d)."

5

ChromaDex

"The products violate section 505(a) of FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 355(a). They are Misbranded drugs under section 502 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 352. Delivery into interstate commerce is prohibited under section 301(a) and (d) of FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 331 (a) and (d)

FDA banned the product and suggested not to use it anymore."

6

Physician 360 kits

Physician 360 Rapid Strep Test, Physician 360 Rapid Flu Test (collectively referred to as Physician 360 Rapid Tests), Physician 360 COVID-19 Rapid Test

Physician 360, Inc

These tests were intended to be purchased and tested by the consumer at home. Wherein, desired steps were mentioned

The agency is not aware of the repercussions. As the tests first require premarket approval
(MARCS-CMS 604202)
"They violate section 201(h) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(h). As they do not have premarket approval, they violated section 513(f)(1) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1). As they have no approval to use such devices, they violate act 515(a) of Act, 21 U.S.C. 360e(a), 520(g) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360j(g), they are therefore declared adulterated under section 501(f)(1)(B) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 351(f)(1)(B) and declared misbranded under the section 502(o) the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352(o). Lastly, as the firm failed to notify about its interstate commerce for distribution it violated section 510(k) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360 (k)."

7

Invisi Smart Mask

ISM5 Invisi Smart Mask

ISM5 Invisi Smart Mask (Black Edition)

ISM30 Invisi Smart Mask

Invisi Smart Technologies UK LTD

"The product claims to be used for treating the infection, hence, the device comes under section 201(h) of FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(h). Even the device is adulterated under section 501(f)(1)(B) of Act 21 U.S.C. 351(f)(1)(B). The firm was devoid of any premarket approval, thus, section 515(a) of the Act, 21U.S.C. 360e(a) or section 520(g) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360j(g) is applied. The product is misbranded, leading to section 502(o) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352(o). Even it violated section 510(k) of the Act, 21 U.S.C 360(k) as no intimation of the commercial distribution was given to the agency."

8

Vivera Pharmaceuticals, Inc

"The device comes under section 201(h) of Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(h). The test kits are adulterated under section 501(f)(1)(B) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 351(f)(1)(B). The firm has no premarket approval and thus comes under section 515(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360(a), even has no approved application for investigational device, leading to section 520(g) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360j(g). As the kits are misbranded it comes under section 502(o) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352(o). The firm even did not notify the agency regarding its commercial distribution as mentioned under section 510(k) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360(k). The intestate delivery of the product has also been prohibited under section 301(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 331(a)."

9

OCLO LLC/OCLO Nanotechnology Science

The product consists of chlorine dioxide, which according to the viewpoint of the company, is an effective therapy to treat the infection and share a major contribution to treating autoimmune diseases and strengthening the immune response. It also acts as an oxidative agent

The product also claims to prevent coronavirus infection
(MARCS-CMS 614310)
"The product violated the new drugs sold act, under section 505(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 355(a). As being the misbranded agents, they violate section 502 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352. Also, interstate delivery of this product is prohibited under section 301(a) and (d) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)."

10

Allure Imports

There are many false claims in the market, that usage of colloidal silver prevents coronavirus infection. This product from Allure imports has similar viewpoints too

Even research had supported colloidal silver as a good antiviral agent
(MARCS-CMS 613211)
"The product is an unapproved new agent sold in violation of section 505(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 355(a) and misbranded under section 502 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352. As Vitality C60 intends to treat coronavirus infection in animals, it violates act 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B). The product is also not approved under the new animal drug application or listed under sections 512, 571, and 572 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b, 360ccc, and 360ccc-1. Hence, it is considered unsafe under section 512(A) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b (a) and adulterated under 501(a)(5) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5). The interstate delivery of these products is prohibited under section 301(a) and (d) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)."

11
"DuThermX"
Dubak Electrical Group

"As the product was known to be used for COVID-19 purposes it comes under section 201(h) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(h). The product didn't have any FDA authorization or clearance for market and sale in the United States therefore it was declared adulterated under section 501(f)(1)(B) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 351(f)(1)(B). The product had no premarket approval and came under section 515(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360e(a) nor an approved application for investigational device exemptions. The company did not notify the FDA regarding interstate commerce and delivery of the product and therefore was charged for those sections

12
"TI-120GTS"
Omega Engineering Inc

The device comes under section 201(h) as it claims to treat, prevent, diagnose and cure COVID-19 infection in people. The healthcare providers had already started to rely on this product which makes it even more perilous. It also demands screening group elevated body temperature

It has been put under other sections as it had no authorization from FDA nor does the manufacturers have any pre-market approval or interstate commerce permission for trading the product."

13

Cannabidiol (CBD) products

Balance CBD Drops

Relief CBD Drops

Relax CBD Drops

Relief CBD Salve

Cannafyl

The product was sold as dietary supplements. Even demanded to be the cure of a handful of diseases like Epilepsy, Multiple sclerosis, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Depression, Bacterial Infection, Heart diseases, etc

Help in managing cancer growth

Seek relief in drug addiction behaviour

The product was even intended to cure COVID-19 infection and displayed positive effects
(MARCS-CMS 611957)
"The FDA incorporated the CBD products under sections 201(ff)(3)(B)(i) &(ii) as they are excluded and cannot be used as dietary supplements. It also comes under the section for unapproved drugs 201(g)(1) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)

These drugs are new agents and CBD-consisting drugs are prohibited and affect human health, hence come under section 201(p) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(p). The sections were applied for interstate commerce and delivery without the permission of the agency. The CBD compounds are misbranded under section 502(f)(1) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1). The label of the products had no adequate labeling according to the section under 21 CFR 201.100(c)(2) and 201.115, FDA- requires justification. These sections insist that the label should be adequate so that a layperson can also understand it. The Pet drop comes under new animal products under section 201(v) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(v). Also, they have no authorization to legally market the product which charges many other sections on them."

14

Products

Immunoral

Immune Plus

MD Immune Support Spray

MD CVK-365 Mouth Spray

Ageless Global, LLC

Immunoral (CBD, nano-silver, specialized mineral oxide NSF-60 water, and Vitamin C): Promises natural defense against the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen and supports the immune system

Immunoral CVK-365: Defensive against the virus

Immunoral Mouth Spray: Prevention against the COVID-19 infection, and inactivation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at over 98% within 2-min with no regrowth in 48-h
(MARCS-CMS 612865)
"The product falsely claims to cure, prevent, diagnose, and treat the COVID-19 infection. It is an unapproved new drug sold under section 505(a) and misbranded under section 502 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352. The instruction of delivery into interstate commerce is prohibited under section 301(a) and (d) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 311(a) and (d)."

15

Orvic dba Webstore-USA

LUNGENE [sic]: It is a Covid-19 IgG/IgM rapid antibody test cassette (to detect previous coronavirus infection)

CLUNGENE [sic]: Rapid test kit
(MARCS-CMS 610208)
The device violates section 201(h) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(h) due to its false claims

The device had no marketing approval, clearance, or premarket approval thus violating the section and coming under it. The device also doesn't have approval for interstate clearance and delivery

16
COVID-Aid Tincture
Dr. Paul's Lab

Based on the FDA review the drug violates section 505(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 355(a). As the product is misbranded, it violated section 502 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352. The delivery into interstate commerce without permission violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)

17

CreativeStar Solutions

The website entails the product as a solution for the prevention of covid-19

They promised it to be a leading solution in prevention
(MARCS-CMS 613535)
This device comes under section 201(h) under the Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(h). As the device has no authorization and clearance it violates the sections under it. It is also misbranded and has no market approval, to begin with. It had no interstate commerce permission from the agency

18

Opgal Optronic Industries Ltd

Help minimize the coronavirus outbreak

This device comes under section 201(h) under the Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(h) and violated other sections too. The FDA generated a warning letter against the supplier and requested to revert soon

19

Buffered C Powder

Get Well 2 Day Vit- A

Get Well 2 Day Vit-D3 Robynzyme

OMG Cell Protek

PYRLess Group, LLC dba Dr. Fitt

These products consist of Iodine and the composition of Robynzyme is hydrochloric acid, digestive enzymes, and vitamin B

As iodine is a halogen, it has the property to kill bacteria, viruses, and fungi at a 99% kill rate

Vitamin D is supported by the fact that it is a hormone that stimulates protein production and thereby supports the immune system

Vitamin C has anti-viral properties

Thus, these agents were supplied over such claims that have not been proven at all. Although it can be one of the intrinsic properties, that does not mean a person can cure the infection just by incorporating these agents
(MARCS-CMS 611424)
The drug comes under section 505(a) of the Act, 21 US.S.C. 355 (a). As the products are misbranded section 502 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352 is applied. The products are prohibited from interstate commerce. The FDA demands an explanation in due time

20
Corona Destroyer Tea
AusarHerbs

The tea is a two-formula option i.e., prevention & reversal

The formula claims to destroy the coronavirus

It claims to reverse covid in 7 days and symptoms to be gone in 3 days
(MARCS-CMS 610976)
The product violates section 505(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 355(a). It is a misbranded agent under section 502 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352. It is also prohibited to introduce or deliver into interstate commerce but it violates that section

The list of products does not just end here. It is hard to even imagine the number of fraudulent products that stacked the market. A product from block Scientific sold the QUIKPACII COVID-19 antibody test kit and the long island biotech COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test (Colloidal Gold). These products promised to cure and diagnose the coronavirus infection. The issue came under highlight when FDA issued a warning letter against the company and accused the website of its detrimental claims under violation of various sections (MARCS-CMS 609533). The pharmacy is under strict scrutiny as fraudulent products are increasing. Looking at the current scenario, pharmacists need to pay attention before selling any new agent to the patient. The solution requires better inventory management that could suppress drug deviation activities (Mason 2020). The products like fake masks were also seen in the market; they could be detected by checking particle infiltration efficacy. Due to many reasons and especially awareness, it is not always feasible to check the efficacy of the mask before wearing them. Henceforth, FDA should possess some stringent guidelines to stop the production of the low-quality mask (Lam et al. 2020). It is important to take the advice of health care providers before consuming any product that promises to treat infection and related symptoms. To emphasize a more evidence-based approach and belief system, it is better to believe the scientifically relevant things rather than the one built over a delusional system of fraudulent claims.

Anti-vaccine pseudoscience

Scientists and researchers in the world have successfully launched vaccines as a cure to prevent COVID-19 infection in a very less period (Goodman et al. 2020). Currently, there are 38 vaccines are approved for emergency use in the various part of the world (Chavda et al. 2022e, b). Despite devastating scientific knowledge proving the vaccines are safe and effective, misleading and false information has weakened the public's confidence in their safety and uptake (Cascini et al. 2022). For people without scientific knowledge, understanding and interpreting the graphs of data of COVID infections is difficult (Miller 2020). Vaccine hesitation is defined as a delay in accepting or refusing immunizations irrespective of their availability (Darby et al. 2017; Razai et al. 2021).

The anti-vaccination movements started from the smallpox pandemic, where despite the greater number of deaths taking place the vaccine hate was still there (Riedel 2005; Wagner et al. 2020) The US vaccination act was passed in 1840 and 1853 and vaccination was made compulsory for all (Gibelli et al. 2022). On the other side, anti-vaccination leagues were formed and numerous anti-vaccination tracts, books, and journals appeared in the 1870s and 1880s (Wolfe and Sharp 2002). While in the golden age, i.e., the 1950s and 1960s of vaccination, the anti-vaccine movements declined but the opposition still existed. In May 1974, an Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) was initiated by WHO, which was aimed to vaccinate all children against killer diseases; polio, diphtheria, tuberculosis, pertussis, measles, and tetanus. In this digital era of the Internet, the anti-vaccination activists have opportunities to spread the message to the great public, and media platforms have become influential to spread vaccine hesitancy. On the safe side, immunization experts have made people shift from vaccine hesitancy to vaccine resistance (Dube and Macdonald 2015; Child and Health 2017).

The traditional and social media platforms are the important source for sharing the current affairs in the world; they have both negative and positive impacts on people's minds. In the spread of misinformation regarding the COVID-19 infection and its treatment, these platforms have played a crucial role (Mostajo-Radji 2021). With little information and uncertainty, social media exposure to erroneous disease news has elevated anxiety and risk perception in society (İkiışık et al. 2021). WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are the most commonly used platforms by people nowadays. A study was performed regarding the spread of pseudoscientific content through YouTube. The study performed crowdsourcing of the content and observed that YouTube takes measures to spread the harmful information related to critical and emerging topics like COVID-19 (Papadamou et al. 2020). Twitter is also a big platform where scientists or media who report science-related information communicate health-related messages. But sometimes there is a bad impact on people because of the misinformation spread by the bigger celebrities and politicians, as people start believing them (Claassen 2021). In Latin America because of this fake message spread, wrong steps were taken to fight COVID-19 infection, which included administration of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and use of untested plasma therapy. Further, they also used "chlorine dioxide" as a treatment for the COVID-19 infection without any evidence. A clinical trial was only registered and there are no results yet for the trial. Chlorine dioxide is used as a disinfectant to clean medical equipment and treat residual waters and, on high doses, it inhibits microbial and viral activity. A study on animal models showed that it causes thyroid suppression, DNA damage, and neurotoxicity; therefore, it is not safe for human consumption. The people in Latin America followed the pseudoscientists who were presented as experts in media; they watch them in the same position as those of epidemiologists, public health officials, and science diplomats. This was all because of misinformation and pseudoscience (Mostajo-Radji 2021).

Vaccine acceptance or refusal has been mentioned in many published reviews. The parents' decisions to use or avoid immunization for their children are complex and multidimensional. These parents either refuse some vaccines or accept other vaccines; they take decisions based on their schedule. Due to the increasing number of refusals, the immunization program is getting less response (Dube and Macdonald 2015).

Science the Wire wrote an article "What drives vaccine hesitancy among India's educated and privileged?" they mentioned all the facts and important points regarding the vaccine hesitancy of Mumbai people. Vaccine hesitancy is mostly observed in poor and marginalized people. The people are in doubt because of unfriendliness behavior, anger, and suspicion against the state and the agencies. The three main factors observed for vaccine hate are as follows:

1. Misinformation in the majority of people. The spread of fake messages and information regarding the disease and its cure is misleading the majority of the population. People are not understanding the facts because of low science literacy, many low-baked data available on the internet, and lessened ability to analyze the available data. There are misconceptions that people think they have higher immunity as they live in such a dirty environment and where a good vaccine takes 4-10 years of research to develop, and the COVID vaccine developed in hurry it might be unsafe.

2. Vaccines kill. This has been proved in front of people's eyes that vaccines can kill, as with coming variants, the fully vaccinated people have also died, and that is the proof for them.

3. Big Pharma Conspiracy. According to anti-vaxxers in western countries, Big Pharma companies have created the current crisis, or at least a mass hysteria against universal vaccination.

The vaccine hate is also because of some myths that people believe in; these myths can be contradicted by the scientific facts that prove that vaccines are good for human health. There are some myths and facts listed by Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and these are mentioned below in Table ​Table3 3 .

Table 3

Sr. No

Myths

Facts

References

A strong correlation exists between anti-vaccination and belief in conspiracy theories in addition to a strong connection between anti-vaccination and resistance to having your freedoms taken away. The hesitancy amongst the people can be vanished by conducting awareness programs and campaigns in the major areas. A collaborative attempt by doctors, pediatricians, governments, public health officials, and civil society will decrease the spread of myths and misinformation about vaccines (Health 2019). The localities with proper scientific knowledge can also guide the people by giving them proper suggestions, advice, and making them aware to take the vaccine. If we as a human face failure in this, the unvaccinated children and the unvaccinated community will have to suffer greatly in the future.

This vaccine hesitancy has become the critical barrier to achieving the COVID-19 vaccine coverage. It is unclear whether the people are willing to take the vaccine or not. A study was performed in the USA to assess the association of people with vaccine hesitancy and vaccine acceptance. The studies reported that among the people who have vaccine hesitancy, 32% have taken 1 or more doses, 37% are likely to be vaccinated, and 32% are unlikely to be vaccinated. On the other side, the people who are likely to take vaccine among them 54% have taken 1 or more doses, 39% are likely to be vaccinated, and 7% people are unlikely to be vaccinated. The studies conclude that hesitancy has been decreased between late 2020 and early 2021 (Siegler et al. 2021). Another study was performed to analyze the vaccine willingness and perspectives of the public in India. The main concerns because of which people are not willing to take the vaccine were safety and side effects, effectiveness, and rapid development of vaccines (Chandani et al. 2021). The unwillingness and refusal of vaccine administration and vaccine hesitations are among the top ten most significant global health threats (İkiışık et al. 2021). In one of the article, authors mentioned vaccine hesitancy in the era of COVID-19; they wrote about Maya Goldenberg, a philosopher who wrote about ideas on vaccine hesitancy, its genesis, rationale, and potential solutions using a multi-disciplinary approach to ground the arguments in her book " Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science" (Adhikari and Cheah 2021).

We as authors believe that there is a tremendous amount of information available on the internet and social platforms that should be taken in the positive sense and should be read and spread by educated professionals so that none of the persons remains unvaccinated in one-two coming years.

The US government interagency divided these SARS-COV-2 variants into three classes, variant of interest, variant of concern, and variant of high consequence. Table ​Table4 4 classifies the variants according to classes, their time of emergence, and S protein mutations (Vasireddy et al. 2021).

Table 4

Sr. No

Classes

Variant names

Specific S protein mutations

Time of emergence

1

Variant of interest

B.1.5265 (Eta) (Chavda et al. 2022d)

Del Y144, D614G, L5F, T95I, D253G, E484K

December, 2020

2

Variant of Concern

B.1.1.7 (Alpha) (Socher et al. 2021)

69del,70del,144del, (E484K*),N501Y,A570D,D614G,P681H,T7161,S982A, D1118H (K1191N*)

September, 2020

B.1.1.529 (Omicron) (Chavda et al. 2022a; Chavda and Apostolopoulos 2022b)

A67V, del69-70, T95I, del142-144, Y145D, del211, L212I, ins214EPE, G339D, S371L, S373P, S375F, K417N, N440K, G446S, S477N, T478K, E484A, Q493R, G496S, Q498R, N501Y, Y505H, T547K, D614G, H655Y, N679K, P681H, N764K, D796Y, N856K, Q954H, N969K, and L981F

November, 2021

3

Variant of high Consequence

No variants belong to this category until now

Not applicable

-

4

Other Variants

B.1.427 and B.1.429 (Epsilon) (McCallum et al. 2021)

S13I, W152C, L452R, L452R, and D614

September, 2020

B.1.621 & B.1.621.1 (Mu) (J. et al. 2022)

R346K, E484K, N501Y, D614G, P681H, D950N, and N1074K

January, 2021

These variants have caused COVID-19 infection to fully vaccinated people also. Some variants had caused few symptoms and some have led to the deaths of the patients. To prevent the infection, the simplest way is by following the COVID-19 protocols. Some important measures to follow:

1. washing of hands frequently.

2. when hands are not clean, avoid touching eyes, nose, or mouth.

3. when outside use hand sanitizer.

4. the use of medical masks is compulsory.

5. follow social distancing in public places.

6. stay quarantined or isolate yourself if symptoms are observed.

Result and discussion

The pandemic has made us acknowledge the fact that another such pandemic might hit soon, and we must be prepared for it. This pandemic had already taught the importance of hygiene, to stop the exploitation of nature, and human interactions highlighted the importance of mental health and disciplining the overall human life. In addition, remembering the fatality of the pandemic defined the paramount of human life and our loved ones. Thus, we should be adaptive to certain measures like a consultation with a healthcare practitioner if unusual symptoms are observed, avoiding home remedies, colliding myths, and religious beliefs to treat a disease, etc.

Along with the pandemic, the false news and misinformation surfaced instigated fear in people. This triggered them to omit consultation with healthcare practitioners, news-demeaning vaccines as fatal, stating home remedies as superior, or myths that caused the ongoing situation to grimmer. Amidst the false news, there were certain websites claiming medicines, inhalers, and testing kits available to treat and cure the symptoms of COVID-19. Such products were to be discovered all over the internet, even links directed to these websites could be found. Thus, looking at the severity FDA sends warning letters to the claimers under the sections of the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that are discussed in this article. The social media influence discussed in this review talks about how it has played a crucial role in people's behavior and actions.

The number of vaccines approved by the WHO to date is 10 which includes Nuvaxovid by Novovax, Covovax, and Covidshield by serum institute of India, Spikevax by Moderna, Comirnaty by Pfizer/BioNTech, Ad26.COV2.S by Janssen Johnson & Johnson's, Vaxzevaria by Oxford/Aztrazenca, Covaxin by Bharatbiotech, Covilo by Sinopharm, and CoronaVac by SinoVac (Francis et al. 2022). However, none of them is 100% effective and thus people have no confidence in the vaccine. There are many other factors such as its manufacturing method, the contents of the vaccine, the small period in which the vaccine was developed, etc., which have come across people's minds and have caused vaccine hatred (Mose et al. 2022). One of the major issues is maximum people in the small rural areas are not aware of the vaccines to date, so vaccination drives should be amplified in such rural areas, also campaigns and awareness programs will help in increasing the scientific knowledge of the poor and underprivileged people. As of 1 st June 2022, Our World In data reports that 63.1% of the world population has taken at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine out of which 11.77 billion doses have been administered globally and 24.77 million are administered each day.

Some questions come to our mind what if another such pandemic occurs in the coming 25-50 years again. What new implementations and learnings from this pandemic we are going to take to decrease the fatality rate? What new ideas we can execute to avoid mistakes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic? What can we do so that the infection does not affect the GDP of a nation?? Researchers have already studied the COVID-19 data thoroughly and have generated results that will help us to make quick decisions in the future. A statistical analysis study suggests that lesser air pollution, high healthcare spending, and high GDP per capita are the factors associated with low rates of fatality of COVID infection in countries (Coccia 2021a). A study also says that the ideal level of vaccination was achieved after the growth of the covid infection wave. In the initial phase of the pandemic there was a lower level of doses administered per 100 inhabitants, but as the waves were coming the level was improved from 46.75 (in March 2021) to about 90 doses of vaccines in May 2021(Coccia 2022a) that is more than 100 doses, currently. Vaccine hesitancy is one of the factors that should be kept in mind as it affects the performance of nations. The performance of the nation also depends on public relations and the public trust which would be a strength in crisis management during a pandemic. Many other factors would prepare the nation to deal with a pandemic, and these factors are stated in a study by Coccia Mario (Coccia 2022b). Some lessons can be learned and strategies can be made to prevent pandemics related to Health, Environmental and Institutional, etc. (Coccia 2021b).

On September 22, 2021, FDA approved the booster dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to be administered after the completion of six months of the primary series. The booster dose is aimed to restore vaccine effectiveness clearly stated by WHO, especially advised for immunocompromised patients. Additional doses of a vaccine may be needed as part of an extended primary series for target populations where the immune response rate following the standard primary series is deemed insufficient. Persons with weakened immunity are recommended to take the booster dose after the primary doses are taken. Researchers and scientists are taking everyday efforts to fight the COVID-19 infection. We as individuals should contribute and co-operate with the ongoing process by accepting necessary measures recommended by government bodies and healthcare practitioners.

In summary, many pseudoscience and fraudulent products are prevailing in the market for COVID-19 management. We have summarized all such possible gimmicks in this narrative review. As seen from the tabulated summaries of the products that are banned by the USFDA, many fraudulent products are sold in the market without regulatory approval. We have also tried to scientifically prove many of such gimmicks wrong. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has become an advantage for scammers to earn money. To avoid such frauds, we need to understand some points that should be kept in mind for our safety. Most of the frauds are happening through online advertisements.

1. Avoid giving personal information to unknown sources.

2. Be aware of the fake test and bogus cures.

3. Third-party orders of medicines should be avoided.

4. If you receive an unsolicited email offering information, supplies, or treatment for COVID-19 or requesting your personal information for medical purposes, do not respond. Legitimate health authorities will not contact the public this way.

5. Avoid sending money using wire transfers, gift cards, or the mail, or sending payments in cash to businesses, charities, or individuals. Do not send money using these methods or channels.

6. Only use contact information from a trustworthy source when trying to reach a company or your bank.

7. Keep an eye out for websites and email addresses that provide COVID-19-related information or services.

8. Never respond to unsolicited offers for a COVID-19 vaccine, treatment, or cure. If a vaccine becomes available, you will not hear about it through an email, online ad, or telemarketing pitch.

9. Make sure any company offering COVID-19 supplies or products has positive reviews on the internet. Avoid companies with negative reviews.

10. Any business, charity, or individual requesting payments or donations in cash, via wire transfer, gift card, or through the mail should be avoided. Do not use these payment methods or channels.

Some help-line numbers and websites will help if any fraud occurs.

1. HHS-OIG Hotline-1-800-HHS-TIPS (tips.hhs.gov)

2. FBI Hotline-1-800-CALL-FBI (ic3.gov)

3. CMS/Medicare Hotline- 1-800-MEDICARE

4. Social Security Scans (SSA) oig.ssa.gov

5. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-for Funeral expenses, they provide help.

Currently, in the pandemic time, health agencies are approving the repurposed medicines based on the small-scale clinical data for emergency uses that become ineffective (Most of the cases) after large randomized clinical studies. Proper vigilance strategies need to be defined by the regulatory agencies of the nation and routine awareness programmes shall be arranged for educating the people and healthcare workers on routine updates.

Conclusion

This narrative review describes all possible pseudoscience and fraudulent products for COVID-19 management. We have also attempted to cover the scientific facts that could prove the myths wrong and mentioned some suggestions and facts that would lead people in the correct direction and make them ready for the future. The prevalence of such false products and home remedies is more in underdeveloped countries than in developed ones. The information gathered here is mostly from published peer-reviewed literature, official websites of regulatory bodies, and some well-known web pages. Apart from that, there is tons of information spreading through Whatsapp, Facebook, and other social media pages that we have not considered here. All this information will demand awareness for the common people and educate them to get proper treatment and get vaccinated first as early as possible to get global eradication of SARS-CoV-2.

It is claimed that the most critical lesson learned from COVID-19 is that policymakers must act quickly to implement containment and mitigation policies (Giordano et al. 2020; Lavazza and Farina 2020). It was reported that 95% of cases could have been stopped if China had acted on time and alerted the world with its own experiences (Sample 2020; Wang et al. 2020). This demonstrates the importance of pace when grappling with a pandemic, as well as the much greater risks that inaction poses. We may also see that, in order to preserve public confidence in the face of crises like this, elected officials should make straightforward, succinct choices and adhere to them without backtracking. Another message from the pandemic that elected officials should take away is the value of creating an economy that can change to better serve our lifestyle and business. The capitalist world operates on a "disposable" economy, in which we buy goods, discard them, and recycle them. After the COVID-19 pandemic has ended, the most valuable lesson that political leaders can learn is the importance of a self-sustaining, circular economy, which can help us both plan for and cope with the pressures on foreign markets that pandemics can cause. It should be remembered, however, how important it is for policymakers to adopt strategies that flatten infection risk curves rapidly. At the end, it is important to have consistency on implementation of appropriate measures during the pandemic time in regions and countries. This requires global participation and co-operation.

It is anticipated that COVID-19 will become endemic at some point, which essentially means that the virus will not disappear, but rather, sufficient numbers of people will develop immunity through vaccination or infection, resulting in fewer hospitalizations and deaths despite the virus' continued circulation in the community.

Acknowledgements

V.P.C. wants to dedicate this work to L M College of pharmacy as a part of the 75th year celebration of the college.

Author contribution

V.P.C. contributed to the conceptualization, design, writing, and editing of the article. S.S., N.M., and P.D. wrote the first draft while V.P.C. critically revised the same. All the authors read, reviewed, and approved the final paper and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable

Consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

Aleem A, Akbar Samad AB, Slenker AK (2022) Emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 And novel therapeutics against coronavirus (COVID-19). In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan. Treasure Island (FL) [PubMed]

Ali S. Combatting against Covid-19 & misinformation: a systematic review. Hum Arenas. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s42087-020-00139-1. [[CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Al-Zaman MS (2021) COVID-19-related social media fake news in India. Journal. Media 2

Annavajhala MK, Mohri H, Wang P, et al (2021) Emergence and expansion of the SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.526 identified in New York. medRxiv Prepr Serv Heal Sci 2021.02.23.21252259. 10.1101/2021.02.23.21252259

Borse NN, Cha J, Chase CG, et al (2021) Responding to the surge of substandard and falsified health products triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic. Usp

Ostrom CW, Ostrom BJ, Kleiman M (2021) Judges and discrimination: assessing the theory and practice of criminal sentencing. In: Peru. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204024.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2022

Chavda VP, Apostolopoulos V. Global impact of delta plus variant and vaccination. Expert Rev Vaccines Null-Null. 2022 doi: 10.1080/14760584.2022.2044800. [[PubMed] [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Chavda VP, Prajapati R, Lathigara D, et al (2022e) Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 management: an update. Expert Opin Biol Ther: 1-18. 10.1080/14712598.2022.2078160 [PubMed]

Douglas KM (2021) COVID-19 conspiracy theories. 10.1177/1368430220982068

Doyno C, Sobieraj DM, Baker WL (2020) Toxicity of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine following therapeutic use or overdose. Clin Toxicol 0:1-12. 10.1080/15563650.2020.1817479 [PubMed]

Dube E, Macdonald NE (2015) Vaccine hesitancy , vaccine refusal and the anti-vaccine movement : influence , impact and implications [PubMed]

Dunn A (2021) Fact check: An alkaline diet won't kill the coronavirus. In: US Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/06/fact-check-alkaline-diet-not-cure-coronavirus/3068027001/. Accessed 15 Feb 2022

ICP (2020) Hand Sanitizers Require 70% Ethanol. In: Integr. Chem. Philipp. https://www.icp.org.ph/2020/03/hand-sanitizers-require-70-percent-ethanol/. Accessed 1 Mar 2022

Kundu C (2021) Fact check: unverified information about Omicron variant cause social media panic - Fact Check News. In: India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/fact-check/story/fact-check-unverified-information-about-omicron-variant-cause-social-media-panic-1882571-2021-11-30. Accessed 15 Feb 2022

Macfarlane D (2020) Reducing consumer demand for ineffective health remedies : using psychology to counter pseudoscience and the illegal wildlife trade

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (2021) How to address COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. In: CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/addressing-vaccine-misinformation.html. Accessed 1 Mar 2022

Palosky C (2021) COVID-19 Misinformation is Ubiquitous: 78% of the public believes or is unsure about at least one false statement, and nearly a third believe at least four of eight false statements tested | KFF. In: KFF. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/press-release/covid-19-misinformation-is-ubiquitous-78-of-the-public-believes-or-is-unsure-about-at-least-one-false-statement-and-nearly-at-third-believe-at-least-four-of-eight-false-statements-tested/. Accessed 1 Mar 2022

Papadamou K, Zannettou S, Blackburn J, et al (2020) "It is just a flu": assessing the Effect of Watch History on YouTube's Pseudoscientific Video Recommendations

Q&A (2021) Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): food safety and nutrition. In: Who. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-food-safety-and-nutrition. Accessed 1 Mar 2022

Razai MS, Chaudhry UAR, Doerholt K, et al (2021) Covid-19 vaccination hesitancy. 1136-1139. 10.1136/bmj.n1138 [PubMed]

Sample I (2020) Research finds huge impact of interventions on spread of Covid-19. In: Guard. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/research-finds-huge-impact-of-interventions-on-spread-of-covid-19. Accessed 13 Nov 2021

Simon J, Helter TM, White RG, et al (2020) Capability impacts of the Covid-19 lockdown in association with mental well-being, social connections and existing vulnerabilities: an Austrian survey study. BMC Public Health 1-12. 10.1101/2020.11.14.20231142

Articles from Environmental Science and Pollution Research International are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pseudoscience and fraudulent products for COVID-19 management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As of now, the COVID-19 pandemic has become uncontrolled and is spreading widely throughout the world. Additionally, new variants of the mutated viral variants have been found in some countries that are more dangerous than the original strain. Even vaccines ...

# data[].attributes.body
All Natural Definition: The deceptive usage of the word "all-natural," which frequently suggests safety and efficacy but lacks regulatory criteria or scientific verification.

Connection: It identifies items or activities that use the attraction of "all-natural" labelling to attract customers. While natural components may be helpful, their presence does not ensure safety or effectiveness.  Pseudoscientific claims may take advantage of this uncertainty, pushing items with unproven health advantages. Furthermore, the phrase "natural" might be subjective and interpreted incorrectly resulting in incorrect judgments about a product's purity or quality. The serves as a reminder to critically analyze claims made about "all-natural" goods, urging consumers to seek evidence-based information and transparent labelling to make educated decisions about their health and well-being.

# data[].attributes.body
Appeal To Authority Definition: The Authority detects situations in which pseudoscientific assertions are based on appeals to authority persons or credentials rather than actual proof.

Connection: It advises against trusting allegations just because they emanate from people with purported competence or renowned affiliations. Pseudoscientific supporters may use the appeal to authority to support their assertions by citing physicians, scientists, and celebrities. However, true scientific inquiry is based on facts and critical analysis rather than the messenger's rank. Understanding the authority fallacy enables individuals to evaluate assertions on merit rather than the reputation of those presenting them. It emphasizes skepticism and independent study, supporting a more discriminating approach to analyzing information in the field of science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeal to Authority Fallacy | Definition & Examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Appeal to authority fallacy refers to the use of an expert’s opinion to back up an argument. Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #6 Red flags : Confusion of Correlation

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #6 Red flags : Confusion of Correlation

# data[].attributes.body
Confusion Of Correlation Definition: It detects instances in which pseudoscientific assertions incorrectly infer causation from correlation, resulting in cause-and-effect correlations without adequate proof.

Connection: It highlights the typical mistake of believing that simply because two variables are linked, one must cause the other. Pseudoscientific statements frequently take advantage of this misunderstanding, drawing unfounded presumptions to justify their claims. For example, a link between wearing a specific gemstone and feeling more energized may lead to the pseudoscientific assertion that the gemstone has magical characteristics. However, correlation does not imply causality, and other variables might be at play. By distinguishing between correlation and causation, fosters critical thinking and encourages individuals to seek strong proof before adopting causal claims in science.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #7 Red flags : Proof by Verbosity with Causation 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #7 Red flags : Proof by Verbosity with Causation 

# data[].attributes.body
Proof By Verbosity With Causation Definition: The situations in which pseudoscientific assertions seek to show causality by excessive verbosity and complicated explanations rather than actual proof.

Connection: Cautions against overloading listeners with complicated explanations to conceal a lack of substantial evidence establishing causal linkages. This method may be used by proponents of pseudoscience to create the illusion of authority and legitimacy. However, the verbosity of an argument does not automatically validate its claims. Instead, it may mislead or scare people into adopting unfounded claims. Recognizing the verbose causation fallacy allows people to critically analyze arguments based on the weight of evidence rather than the complexity of their presentation, promoting a more discriminating approach to judging causal claims in science and beyond.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Further Explanation of Major Paper Assignment:

Positions, Issues, Arguments, Fallacies

The various parties to moral and philosophical controversies take different positions. That is, they defend different propositions or statements. A proposition or statement is most clearly expressed in a declarative sentence. "Abortion is sometimes morally permissible" and "abortion is never morally permissible" are two positions that people take on the abortion issue.Warning: Many people, including news analysts, often confuse positions with issues. ("Sen. Smith can work together with Sen. Jones because Sen. Jones will support his issues." What is meant, and should have been said, is "Sen. Smith can work together with Sen. Jones because Sen. Jones will support positions Sen. Smith cares about.")
An issue is a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties. It involves an alternative between two or more positions, and usually there is some urgency or importance to this alternative.

The standard and clearest way of stating an issue is to use the phrase "whether [statement-1] or [statement-2]." For instance, "the issue is whether libertarianism is correct or utilitarianism is correct."

A sentence can include just one issue statement, for example, "the issue is whether abortion is morally permissible." Actually, that sentence is shorthand for "the issue is whether abortion is morally permissible or [abortion is] not [morally permissible]." If we include the bracketed terms, the alternatives are explicitly stated by means of two statements linked by "or," but the result is rather verbose.

In the example regarding abortion in the previous paragraph, the alternatives are mutually incompatible and jointly exhaustive. That is, at least one of them must be true and both of them cannot be true.

In the example about utilitarianism and libertarianism, the alternatives are mutually incompatible (because libertarianism and utilitarianism really do disagree) but not jointly exhaustive of all the possibilities. There are ethical theories that differ from both libertarianism and utilitarianism. If one of these theories were true, then libertarianism and utilitarianism would both be false.

When we start from opposed positions that do not exhaust the alternatives, we may later be able to construct or discover a superior middle position that preserves the strengths of the opposing positions we first considered but avoids their weaknesses.
Positions (e.g., that abortion is always wrong, that euthanasia is sometimes permissible) call for logical defense. To present reasons for a position is to present an argument.
Strictly speaking an argument (actually a simple argument) is a set of statements consisting of

(1) one or more statements meant as reasons

and (2) one statement of what the reasons aim to support.

The reasons are called premises. The position, or statement, they aim to support is called the conclusion of the argument.

Often an argument is complex, and can be broken down into smaller arguments (subarguments). The conclusion of some of the subarguments will then serve as premises of others, which in turn aim to support still others, leading eventually to the final or main conclusion. (The diagram of a complex argument looks like a tree, but the alleged support moves from the "upper branches" to the "trunk.")

Evaluating Arguments

A. Evaluating descriptive ("factual") premises:

Are the fact-type premises known to be true?

If not, is there a way that they might be proven?

Is there evidence for them? Against them? Is it reliable evidence? Is it extensive enough?

B. Evaluating moral premises:

Are the moral premises as stated accepted by all or most thoughtful people?
Are they too broad (do they assert "all . . . " where only "some . . . " is likely or plausible)?

Can we think of any clear counter-example?

Fruits: Are the over-all results of people accepting this premise likely to violate basic social values?

Do they cohere or "hang together" with moral premises that are not in dispute?

C. Evaluating the premise-conclusion connection: Supposing "for the sake of argument" the premises are true, would they give the degree of support to the conclusion the argument claims?
In particular, do the arguments avoid common logical errors?

Common logical errors include:

Fallacies of ambiguity
The apparent strength of the argument rest on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase from one part of the argument to another.

False Cause Fallacies

Some causal arguments mistake a mere sequence of observed events for a cause-effect sequence. But the two events may have a common hidden cause or their occurrence one after the other may be accidental.

The argument that just because a second event occurs right after a first event, the first event is the cause of the second commits the "after this, therefore because of this" fallacy.

Hasty Generalization

Generalizations are statements that take forms like "all S are P," "most S are P," "every S is followed by a P," whenever there is an S, there is a P," "no S are P," "nobody who is an S is a P," etc.

(Sometimes the logical indicators, such as "all," are understood but not stated. "A god is an immortal being" means that all gods are immortal beings.)

Is the generalization well supported, or is it backed by too few or unrepresentative examples? (If the latter is true, then we have a hasty generalization.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Positions, Issues, Arguments, Fallacies The various parties to moral and philosophical controversies take different positions. That is, they defend different propositions or statements. A proposition or statement is most clearly expressed in a declarative sentence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #8 Red flags : Suppression by Authorities

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #8 Red flags : Suppression by Authorities

# data[].attributes.body
Suppression By Authorities Definition: The Authority examines cases in which pseudoscientific assertions are said to have been suppressed by authoritative people or organizations to avoid examination or criticism.

Connection: According to pseudoscientific proponents may allege that conventional authority, such as scientific organizations or government agencies, are unfairly suppressing their ideas or facts. This strategy seeks to depict the victims of a conspiracy, throwing doubt on reasonable skepticism and investigation. Genuine scientific investigation, on the other hand, promotes free discussion to ensure the validity of discoveries. It serves as a reminder to critically analyze allegations of suppression, acknowledging that such assertions may be used to divert attention away from the absence of solid evidence supporting pseudoscientific claims. It motivates people to look for proof rather than giving in to victimization claims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here be Dragons is a documentary hosted by Brian Dunning that exposes pseudoscience and encourages critical thinking. The title was chosen since it was a phrase used on old maps and globes to denote that dragons were in unexplored places. Brian argues that people still believe in claims as ridiculous as dragons.

Because the film is intended for a large audience, it doesn't go into religious topics like creationism, but the message of promoting rationality is still there.

The actual movie

Brian Dunning has made the full movie available on YouTube:

Red flags are qualities of pseudosciences that indicate that they are bollocks.

Many of them already have articles on this wiki.

Some red flags not referenced in this video are shady announcements (e.g., scientific journal vs. press conference); claims not fitting into reality; trying to give new information; attacking existing, validated ideas; inability to test the claim; being too good to be true; and/or if the spelling and grammar are bad.

Appeal to authority is using authority figures to endorse their products, which include celebrities, institutions, guys in white lab coats, or people with PhD's but not in the right field.

Ancient wisdom is using, as products, medicines and other items that people from ancient civilizations used. The problem with this is that the ancients knew much less than we do now, and what they used was probably inferior.

Confirmation bias is when people remember things that confirm what they believe or want to believe, but forget things that contradict or pose a problem for the belief. This is fairly common in fortune telling and very common with psychics.

Or more generally, Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Red herrings are distractions from the real question posed by critics used to get away from the legitimate problem with the pseudoscience.

Proof by verbosity is the use of red herrings; and a lot of it. It is laying claims on everything using big words that may or may not be true, but obfuscate the listener.

"Mystical energy"

See the subtopic on Pseudo-scientific use of the term energy.

Suppression by authorities/conspiracy theory

"All natural"

"All natural" is the idea that foods with the label all natural are healthier. This is not true, and the standards for being all natural are so low that the label is virtually meaningless, not to mention that many things found in nature are deadly.

Why people believe weird things

1. The unexplained is cool

2. Simple answers are seductive

3. Inquisitive nature of people

4. People lack the tools for complicated responses

5. Critical thinking isn't much encouraged by society or our educational system

6. Pop culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here be Dragons is a documentary hosted by Brian Dunning that exposes pseudoscience and encourages critical thinking. The title was chosen since it was a phrase used on old maps and globes to denote that dragons were in unexplored places. Brian argues that people still believe in claims as ridiculous as dragons.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #9 Reasons for Belief :  Emotional Connection

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #9 Reasons for Belief :  Emotional Connection

# data[].attributes.body
Emotional Connection Definition: Emotional Bonding identifies the emotional bond as a factor impacting belief, where people are more likely to be convinced by their emotions than by reason or proof.

Connection: This emphasizes how deeply one's feelings might impact their acceptance of ideas or views. Claims that claim to be scientific frequently take advantage of this emotional bond by appealing to people's needs, anxieties, or sense of identity. For example, despite the lack of empirical evidence, someone may still believe in a pseudoscientific therapy because it gives them a sense of comfort or optimism. It enables people to critically evaluate their views by highlighting the role that emotional bonding plays in the formation of beliefs and helping them differentiate between subjective feelings and factual information. It encourages a more logical method of assessing assertions and highlights the significance of evidence-based reasoning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How your brain distorts the world to support your emotional attachments to certain ideas

# data[].attributes.body
Ideology Definition: The ideology influences people's ideas, leading them to embrace viewpoints that are more in line with their ideologies than with verifiable facts.

Connection: It emphasizes how, even in the lack of empirical evidence, ideological frameworks can influence people's opinions. Pseudoscientific claims frequently resonate with ideological groups that have comparable worldviews or beliefs. People may, for instance, disagree with the majority opinion of scientists on climate change because of their ideological beliefs about economic policies or government control. Recognizing the impact of ideology on the development of beliefs invites people to consider critically how their ideological tendencies could skew how they accept certain statements. It encourages a more balanced and evidence-based approach to evaluating information, fostering a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding belief systems and their interaction with ideology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

The psychological study of ideology has traditionally emphasized the content of ideological beliefs, guided by questions about what people believe, such as why people believe in omniscient gods or fascist worldviews. This theoretical focus has led to siloed subdisciplines separately dealing with political, religious, moral, and prejudiced attitudes. The fractionation has fostered a neglect of the cognitive structure of ideological worldviews and associated questions about why ideologies-in all their forms-are so compelling to the human mind. Here I argue that it is essential to consider the nature of ideological cognition across a multitude of ideologies. I offer a multidimensional, empirically tractable framework of ideological thinking, suggesting it can be conceptualized as a style of thinking that is rigid in its adherence to a doctrine and resistance to evidence-based belief-updating and favorably oriented toward an in-group and antagonistic to out-groups. The article identifies the subcomponents of ideological thinking and highlights that ideological thinking constitutes a meaningful psychological phenomenon that merits direct scholarly investigation and analysis. By emphasizing conceptual precision, methodological directions, and interdisciplinary integration across the political and cognitive sciences, the article illustrates the potential of this framework as a catalyst for developing a rigorous domain-general psychology of ideology.

Keywords: ideology, political psychology, ideological cognition, identity

Belief systems have never surrendered easily to empirical study or quantification. Indeed, they have often served as primary exhibits for the doctrine that what is important to study cannot be measured and that what can be measured is not important to study.

Synthesizing a Science of Ideology

Since the birth of modern civilization, human beings have been creating stories that capture their theories about how the world works and how they should act within this complex world. These narratives both describe and prescribe human action and exist in a kaleidoscope of forms-from religious doctrines to political manifestos and from racial supremacy to authoritarian nationalism. These accounts are broadly termed "ideologies" and envelope humans' personal and social lives to a considerable degree. The Pew Research Centre estimates that 84.4% of people affiliate with a religious institution, 1 and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance approximates that over 1.3 billion people voted in their local parliamentary elections across the world between 2016 and 2019. 2 Exposure to and participation in collective ideologies is therefore remarkably prevalent and consequential to people's daily lives.

How should ideology be defined? Political theorists, sociologists, and psychologists have espoused (at times radically) different conceptualizations of ideology. Definitions have ranged from the general (e.g., Adorno et al., 1950; Converse, 1964/2006) to the particular (e.g., Platt & Williams, 2002). As a starting point, most contemporary definitions of ideology have recognized that an ideology functions as a force that epistemically organizes beliefs about how society ought to be structured ( Adorno et al., 1950; Campbell et al., 1960; Kerlinger, 1984) and how people ought to behave. It provides "both an interpretation [emphasis added] of the environment and a prescription [emphasis added] as to how that environment should be structured" ( Denzau & North, 1994, p. 24). Ideologies also operate as forces that socially organize communities, such as tribes, classes, constituencies, and societies ( Freeden, 2001; Van Dijk, 2006). Although there is variability in the specific definitions of ideology, there is a general consensus among scholars that ideologies are epistemically and socially organizing forces.

This article seeks to make three central claims about the study of ideology with the aim of building a robust science of ideological thinking. First, the term "ideology" has been used in different ways by scholars from the disciplines of politics, sociology, and psychology, and this had led to challenges in distinguishing between psychological and nonpsychological processes in the realm of ideologies. Second, whenever psychologists have investigated the nature of ideological beliefs, they have been largely guided by a theoretical interest in the content of ideological beliefs rather than the structure of ideological thinking. In other words, researchers have focused on asking why individuals believe specific ideological claims (such as about the presence of omniscient gods or socialist worldviews) rather than why ideological attitudes-regardless of their content-are so compelling to the human mind and pervasive across civilizations. The focus on ideological content has also obscured critical questions about why some individuals are more attracted to ideological doctrines than others. Nonetheless, there are notable structural and psychological commonalities across diverse ideologies, and so it is possible to advance a psychology of ideology that is attuned to the cognitive structure of ideological thinking across a multitude of ideological domains. This article builds on these observations to formulate a framework of ideological thinking that posits domain-general components and tractable research questions. Methodologically, this endeavor involves examining the psychological substrates of ideologies that may seem radically different and even opposing in objectives under unified empirical investigations. This structure-oriented approach does not negate content-focused approaches, but the structure-based perspective can illuminate relationships that have been hitherto unexamined.

In sum, this proposal for an integrated psychology of ideology aims to catalyze interdisciplinary synthesis regarding what it means for ideological scripts to be internalized by the human mind and how the fundamental mechanisms of cognition shape the ideologies that we endorse and evangelize. It also seeks to demonstrate how we can diagnose thought patterns (and individuals, and perhaps communities or societies) that are strongly ideological from those that are weakly so, or not at all. A science that tackles the commonalities between diverse ideologies can facilitate a more conceptually and methodologically mature psychology of ideology.

The History of Demarcating Ideology

Historically, there have been continual changes in the available and predominant ideologies. Correspondingly, there have been shifts in what has been considered an ideology. Perhaps the earliest manifestations of ideologies are evident in folk myths; these narratives theorized about the causal structure of the world, imagining unseen agents that were responsible for objects and occurrences in the observable world ( Atran, 2002; Norenzayan, 2013). Myths were elaborated on by organized religions to legitimize and dictate certain forms of personal and social behavior. This was followed (in a historical sequence that is neither linear nor uncontested) by the emergence of "secular religions" in the form of sacralized political action and organization. It was at this point in the development of contemporary political life that the term "ideology" entered common usage, and so ideology is often synonymized with political ideology ( Freeden et al., 2013). But viewing history through a broad lens reveals that the ideologies that have governed the human story have in fact shifted and oscillated between mythical, religious, and secular-political forms.

The term "ideology" was coined during the French Revolution by French "ideologues" who wished "to label a new science outlined in the framework of the Enlightenment programme, the teaching of ideas" ( Stråth, 2013, p. 16)-ideology was therefore originally meant to reflect a new science of ideas. Nonetheless, the expression was quickly politicized during Napoleon's reign and became synonymous with "unrealistic theories that tried to intervene in the spheres of government and political action" ( Stråth, 2013, p. 20). By the mid-20th century-after the rise and fall of several totalitarian ideologies-"ideology" was reimbued with a sense of systematicity: Ideologies were conceptualized as long, coherent chains of thought that served as instruments for managing societies and negotiating social and political power. This conceptualization is also mirrored in the exponential rise in the usage of the term "ideology" between 1940 and the 1970s (see Fig. 1 ). Contemporary definitions of ideology typically deal with the latter political interpretation because this interpretation has emerged most recently on the world stage and rapidly modified social relations and traditional power hierarchies. Since then, much ink has been spilled over whether ideology should be defined in a value-neutral fashion or whether to espouse positive or pejorative definitions. Notably, the use of the word ideology itself has experienced a steep decline since the late 1990s-perhaps as a response to the worry that it is an ambiguous and historically contested term ( Corner, 2001; Rorty, 1993).

Some scholars have considered ideology to be a necessary aspect of social cohesion (e.g., the functionalist structuralists; see Malešević, 2006), whereas others have viewed ideologies as mechanisms for distorting reality to satisfy the interests of the few and to induce "false-consciousness thinking" ( Dant, 1991; Mannheim, 1936; Marx & Friedrich, 1939; Williams, 1977). These definitions have changed over time in response to historical events such as the Holocaust and the dismembering of the Soviet Union, as well as landmark disciplinary proposals and critiques 3 (see Fig. 1 ). Although comprehensive reviews of the concept of ideology in different subdisciplines can be found elsewhere (e.g., in psychology, see Jost et al., 2008; in sociology, see Malešević, 2006), here I broadly synthesize these definitions to delineate a phenomenon that is more specific than merely a "system of beliefs" ( Converse, 1964/2006) and scientifically clearer than a "universal and complex social process through which human actors articulate their actions and beliefs" ( Malešević, 2011, p. 283). A primary aim is to identify a tractable conceptualization of ideology that is applicable both to political ideologies (commonly conceptualized along a left-to-right political spectrum) as well as ideologies that are not explicitly about political organization (e.g. religious, environmental, nationalistic, patriarchal). This approach facilitates the building of models of ideology that are informative across diverse cultural and historical contexts and that achieve greater precision in delineating the mechanisms by which ideologies serve as epistemic and social organizational forces.

The Psychological Structure of Ideological Thinking: Domain-General Components

Psychologists have far from neglected ideologies: In fact, rich lines of inquiry in social psychology have sought to unpack the complex processes by which individuals form ideological beliefs. Nonetheless, the study of ideology is marked by substantial balkanization. There is now a psychology of politics ( Jost et al., 2003), religion ( Norenzayan, 2013), nationalism ( Anderson, 1983; Billig, 1995), prejudice ( Brandt, 2017; Dovidio et al., 2010; Duckitt & Sibley, 2009b), dehumanization ( N. Haslam, 2006), obedience ( S. A. Haslam & Reicher, 2007; Reicher & Haslam, 2011), collective action ( van Zomeren et al., 2008), moralization ( Rhee et al., 2019; Rozin, 1999), conspiracy theories ( Douglas et al., 2017; van Prooijen & Van Vugt, 2018), radicalization ( Kruglanski et al., 2014), and so on-but there is not an overarching psychology of ideology.

The reasons for this fractionation are historical, methodological, and conceptual and perhaps all can be traced to a theoretical interest in the content of ideological beliefs rather than the structure of ideological thinking. Psychologists have concentrated on the frequency, prevalence, and popularity of specific ideological claims (e.g., political conservatism or supernatural beliefs) rather than why ideological attitudes-regardless of their content-so powerfully captivate the human imagination. An emphasis on the content of ideological beliefs justifies the existing academic landscape, in which each ideological domain merits its own discipline of study. In contrast, a theoretical and empirical focus on the systematic processes of ideological immersion invites a holistic, interdisciplinary outlook that addresses the commonalities across diverse ideologies.

Indeed, a striking-and often understated-observation made by social scientists and theorists is that diverse, and sometimes opposing, ideologies use remarkably similar tools and mechanisms to inculcate their followers and galvanize them toward collective action and self-sacrifice ( Hoffer, 1951). In particular, ideologies possess two essential qualities regardless of the content of their beliefs or ambition: They are doctrinal and relational. Each of these two characteristics corresponds to particular means of ideological indoctrination.

First, the doctrinal component of ideologies is facilitated by the existence of a rigid dogma that the ideology embraces. This dogma assumes the existence of one true explanation of-and corresponding solution to-existing societal (and often personal) conditions. Dogmas frequently possess a compelling logic, if the premises are believed ( Arendt, 1951), and tend to enforce a sharp distinction between those in possession of the ideology's truth and those who are not. Dogmas also typically espouse categorical divisions between what constitutes "good" versus "evil" and who belongs to the ideological in-group ("us") and who does not ("them"). As sociologist Edward Shils suggested in 1958, "the belief of those who practice politics ideologically [emphasis added] [is] that they alone have the truth about the right ordering of life-of life as a whole, and not just of political life" ( Shils, 1958, p. 451). Ideologies thus breed rigidity and dogmatism about truth, morality, and identity.

Second, the relational facet of ideologies-characterized by parochial altruism toward fellow adherents and antagonism toward nonadherents and dissimilar others-is facilitated by processes of identity demarcation. All ideologies invent and adopt clear identity markers, such as flags, symbols, anthems, costumes, and rituals, that signal membership and devotion. Examples are rife in nationalistic flags and dress, religious and spiritual rituals, political parties' and movements' association with specific symbols and hand gestures, and sports teams' songs and colors (e.g., DeMarrais et al., 1996; Wiltgren, 2014). The shared, visible, and physical nature of these identity markers fosters passionate feelings of immersion and connectedness with the ideological group. Indeed, people are often prepared to kill and die over a flag or a defaced ideological symbol that represents their group ( Swann, Gómez, Dovidio, et al., 2010; Swann, Gómez, Huici, et al., 2010; Whitehouse et al., 2014). Crucially, these identity markers also signal who is not a member of one's ideological group, or who is a weakly committed member. Symbolic gestures and rituals therefore serve as practical and tangible criteria for interpersonal behavior and the perceived legitimacy of collective action.

These common tools of ideological indoctrination-rigid dogma and identity markers-can be found consistently across the spectrum of ideological persuasions. 4 From fascism and communism to radical ecoactivism and religious evangelism, ideological groups offer absolute answers to societal troubles, strict rules for behavior, and an in-group mentality through dedicated practices and symbols. These mechanisms are further amplified by propaganda ( Holbig, 2013) and systems of punishment for deviance and disbelief ( Boyd et al., 2003; Fehr & Gächter, 2002). They are also often augmented via the use of familial and kinship metaphors that depict fellow comrades as "sisters and brothers-in-arms," religious leaders as "mothers and fathers," the nation as the "motherland" or "fatherland," and revolutionaries as the "sons and daughters" of ideological causes ( Malešević, 2011, p. 287; Whitehouse & Lanman, 2014). These characteristics emerge even when the ideology is guided by sincere or benevolent intentions and ideals and allow ideologies to endow followers with a sense of coherence, belonging, meaning, and identity that is tightly intertwined with their attachment to the ideological group ( Malešević, 2011).

Consequently, an ideology, as defined and evaluated here, possesses two characteristics. First, it has a doctrinal component that is reflected in a doctrine composed of a set of descriptive and prescriptive attitudes about social relations and norms. In other words, an ideology interprets the world and offers prescriptions for how people ought to think, behave, and interact. The doctrine is fixed and resilient in the face of reliable but opposing evidence. Second, because there will be adherents and nonadherents to the doctrine's prescriptions, an ideology entails a relational component in which there is strong in-group favoritism toward other adherents of the ideology coupled with distrust toward out-groups. 5 These structural components of ideologies can translate into the psychological realm: "Ideological thinking" can therefore be defined as a style of thinking that is rigid in its adherence to a doctrine and resistance to evidence-based belief-updating (i.e., doctrinal) and favorably oriented toward an in-group and antagonistic to out-groups (i.e., selectively relational). 6

This definition posits that individuals vary in the extent to which they display ideological thinking, depending on how epistemically dogmatic and interpersonally intolerant they are toward those who do not belong to their ideological group. It is thus possible to envision a spectrum along which some individuals are ideologically extreme, in which case they are rigidly espousing a doctrine and willing to harm others and incur personal costs (such as self-sacrifice) in the name of the ideology, and others are ideologically moderate and so are receptive to credible evidence and display tolerance for those with whom they disagree. There are therefore gradations from ideological extremism to moderation. Notably, this definition of ideological thinking is agnostic with regard to (a) whether the ideology possesses logical coherence and systematicity, (b) whether it reflects or captures objective truth, (c) whether it has a reality-distortion function, and (d) the extent to which the ideology is purely symbolic or practical. This framework is also agnostic with regard to the ideology's content-it can be religious, political, or secular. Instead, it emphasizes the structure and style of thinking that ideologies inculcate in followers.

To synthesize a robust and fruitful science of ideology, it is essential to decide on empirically useful definitions of ideological thinking. As outlined above, ideological thinking can be described as a style of thinking that is rigid in its adherence to a doctrine and resistance to evidence-based belief-updating (i.e., doctrinal) and favorably oriented toward an in-group and antagonistic to out-groups (i.e., selectively relational). Ideological thinking is therefore not purely dogmatism or simply intergroup attitudes but a phenomenon that intertwines both. This can be broken down further into tractable subcomponents on the basis of the rich literature on political cognition (see Fig. 2 ). The doctrinal component involves the embrace of a rigid dogma and consequently the adoption of (a) an absolutist description of the present and past as well as (b) a set of prescriptions for future thought and behavior. Indeed, cognitive research reveals that mental representations of what is are separable and yet bound up with what can be ( Phillips & Cushman, 2017; Phillips & Knobe, 2018; Phillips et al., 2019; Shtulman & Tong, 2013) and that this dichotomy begins in infancy ( Shtulman & Phillips, 2018), and so the brain processes descriptions and prescriptions of thought and actions in an intertwined yet distinct fashion. Synthesizing the social-psychological literature, it can be posited that the relational component of ideologies, in which in-group and out-group members are demarcated, involves (a) strong personal identification with the in-group and (b) a rejection of nonadherents that often takes the form of hostility and prejudice. This relational component mirrors the substantial literature in psychology on self-categorization and social-identity theory ( Tajfel et al., 1979; Turner et al., 1987) that illustrate how conceptions of the self are integrated with ideas about similar and dissimilar others. The level of identification with the group shapes the level of hostility and prejudice, but the relationship between them depends on context (e.g., Jasko et al., 2019) and individual differences (e.g., Hogg, 2005).

Using this taxonomy, we can identify ideologies and ideological thinking on the basis of the structure of ideological cognition rather than just the content of the doctrine. This structure-oriented approach does not deny the importance of content, but it can elucidate unexplored research questions. It can therefore expand existing knowledge into a more comprehensive theory of ideology. The four subcomponents (outlined in Fig. 2 ) are all necessary and jointly sufficient for ideological thinking (and especially ideological extremism) to emerge in the full sense. Rather than purely focusing on whether the ideology deals with questions of political organization, social hierarchies, religious beliefs, environmental protection, or class struggles, the proposed approach implies that we can separate thought patterns that are strongly ideological from those that are weakly so, or not at all. For example, an ideologically extreme individual is one who (a) possesses a rigid, evidence-resistant description of the world, (b) strongly adheres to inflexible prescriptions for how they and others ought to live and act, (c) exhibits intense identification with fellow adherents, and (d) displays active hostility toward nonadherents. In contrast, an ideologically moderate individual is one who (a) adopts a description of the world that is flexible and responsive to evidence, (b) does not rely on or impose on others rigid prescriptive rules for living, (c) displays weak or moderate identification with others who believe in similar worldviews, and (d) does not express hostility or prejudice toward dissimilar others. Consequently, the question of whether the ideologies of these two individuals concern race, gender, class, climate change, religion, or politics is irrelevant as to whether they can be designated as ideologically extreme or moderate.

Can ideological thinking be reduced to mere dogmatism? In other words, can ideologies consist purely of doctrines without relational identities? Such "isms" certainly exist, such as free market capitalism or neoliberalism, but they may not be of genuine psychological interest. Political, historical, or sociological analyses are better suited for ideologies that do not engender in individuals some kind of in-group identification and the potential for out-group derogation. For psychological and cognitive scientists, the ideological phenomena that warrant investigation are those that can breed intergroup intolerance and hostility. Consequently, even ideologies such as veganism or environmentalism can produce ideological thinking for some people because individuals can be both epistemically dogmatic about these ideologies and treat nonadherents with contempt, suspicion, and sometimes violence. Not all individuals who adhere to these ideologies will be dogmatic or intolerant, but some individuals will be-and it is the difference between these two groups that can yield fascinating lines of research for the psychology of ideology.

"Isms" built around openness and tolerance may thus not always fulfill the criteria for provoking ideological thinking. The framework presented here can therefore be used to diagnose ideologies and individuals that are particularly dangerous-when they breed evidence-resistant dogmatism and intergroup intolerance-and those are less toxic. Focusing on the structure of the ideology rather than its content can hence shed light on key processes that were previously obscured because of historical use of the term "ideologies" to refer to a wide variety of phenomena.

Theories of Ideology

To situate this account within broader research on ideologies-and to highlight its novelty and significance-it is valuable to differentiate the phenomenon of ideological thinking outlined here from past or existing theories of ideology and related constructs. Between the 1960s to the 1980s, political scientists largely defined a person who is "ideological" as one who possesses a coherent and stable belief system ( Friedman, 2006; Jost, 2006), and so many political scientists debated the extent to which ordinary citizens are capable of being ideological-that is, of possessing coherent, articulable, and noncontradictory political beliefs ( Campbell et al., 1960; Converse, 1964/2006; Judd & Milburn, 1980; Kerlinger, 1984; Tedin, 1987). The framework presented here is not concerned with individuals' capacity to be ideologically sophisticated or systematic: It begins from the premise that all individuals engage with ideologies to differing degrees, and interesting empirical questions arise when we consider why some engage with prepackaged belief systems in a strong and passionate way whereas others do not.

In sociology, ideology has typically been evaluated in relation to systems of power, legitimacy, and collective imagination ( Kumar, 2006), especially in the context of capitalism, religion, fascism, and the production of knowledge ( Hall, 1977/2018). For individuals to be "ideological" in the sociological sense, they are defined as having simplified, reduced, and distorted a complex social reality; ideology is in an antagonistic tension with truth and science ( Vincent, 2010). Other accounts that seek to link the sociological and philosophical critique of ideology with political concerns have posited that "what makes political thinking ideological [emphasis added] relates to the linguistic need and interpretative imperative to choose among contested meanings of concepts, in order to attain the control over language that renders collective political action possible" ( Freeden, 2003, p. 126). The problem with these broad truth- and action-oriented accounts of ideology is that they do not lend themselves easily to psychological analysis or theory. These theories struggle to ask (and answer) why and how a particular mind comes to adopt ideologies fervently. In contrast, when we consider ideological thinking as reflecting a combination of epistemic dogmatism and interpersonal intolerance, we are working with concrete psychological phenomena that can be put under an empirical microscope and tested in a range of ideological contexts.

Within psychology itself, ideology-the infamously slippery construct-has often been synonymized with "belief system," "worldview," "social attitudes," "values," "culture," "life philosophy," or "political orientation." It is useful to briefly review how these terms relate to ideology, as conceptualized here. Koltko-Rivera (2004) viewed worldviews as sets of beliefs and assumptions that describe reality. Following a qualitative and historical review, Koltko-Rivera (2004) listed an extensive number of topics for worldview beliefs, such as worldviews on morality, agency, interpersonal justice, authority, humanity, and more. Although valuable and widely appreciated, Koltko-Rivera's model of worldviews includes over 40 possible worldview topics and so struggles to delineate tractable phenomena that can be of easy use to the psychologist of ideologies. Saucier (2000, 2013) adopted a more empirical approach, relying on a factor analysis of dictionary-derived questionnaire items to evaluate the structure of terms that end in -ism, such as liberalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, fundamentalism, individualism, spiritualism, and others. This resulted in five dimensions that capture such -isms, which Saucier labeled tradition-oriented religiousness, subjective spirituality, unmitigated self-interest, communal rationalism, and inequality-aversion ( Saucier, 2013). These dimensions, especially tradition-oriented religiousness and inequality-aversion, were related to two ideological orientations that constitute Duckitt and Sibley's (2009a, 2009b, 2010) dual-process motivational (DPM) model: right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social-dominance orientation (SDO). The DPM model moves away from unidimensional accounts of ideology that emphasize a single left-right political spectrum (e.g., Adorno et al., 1950; Jost et al., 2003) and instead proposes that RWA and SDO are two distinct ideological dimensions that express separable psychological and motivational processes and traits. According to the DPM account, individuals who score highly on RWA are motivated to establish collective security in response to threats, whereas those who are high in SDO are concerned with establishing group dominance and superiority. The utility of the DPM approach is clear and has been applied to various ideological outcomes such as antigay attitudes ( Moor et al., 2019), antivegan attitudes ( Judge & Wilson, 2019), immigration attitudes and postcolonial ideology in New Zealand ( Satherley & Sibley, 2016, 2018), as well as the evolution of political ideology ( Claessens et al., 2020). The authoritarian-aggression element of the DPM evaluates hostility toward individuals perceived to be dissident to endorsed authorities or deviant from embraced social conventions ( Mavor et al., 2010), and so this line of research can help productively inform research on the relational components of ideological thinking. Nonetheless, the locus of the intergroup dynamic in the DPM approach is about how individuals view social structures rather than how they treat others who share or deviate from their ideology: There is little attention to how individuals treat adherents vs nonadherents (as in the relational component suggested here) or how dogmatically they adhere to these authoritarian or hierarchical ideologies (as in the doctrinal component). The present framework on ideological thinking therefore fills a gap in existing theories of the components of ideologies but also speaks collaboratively to such accounts.

Another set of theories that focus on the motivational origins of ideologies, and consider ideologies in a fairly general way, are significance-quest theory (SQT; Kruglanski et al., 2014), uncertainty-identity theory (UIT; Hogg, 2014), and terror-management theory (TMT; Greenberg & Arndt, 2011). Each posits that individuals adhere to ideologies to satisfy needs to achieve meaning (SQT), certainty (UIT), and a sense of endurance and esteem in the face of mortality (TMT). The current framework can be compatible with-and help expand-these theories by providing greater specificity about the nature of ideological thinking and by identifying structural cognitive features of ideologies-and not only the motivations they satisfy-that make some brains more susceptible to ideological thinking than others. What aspects of achieving meaning or certainty push individuals toward epistemic dogmatism? And which contribute toward interpersonal intolerance? An integrated account of ideological thinking will support a more mechanistic approach to these motivational theories.

If we examine research on racism, nationalism, sexism, religion, and other ideologies, we can detect how doctrinal and relational components are evident repeatedly within these diverse ideologies. In the context of racism, Jones (2000) defined personally mediated racism as consisting of adherence to racist beliefs and assumptions about the links between race, biology, and ability as well as differential treatment of others in accordance with this racist ideology ( Trawalter et al., 2020). The doctrinal and relational components thus reappear in the context of racist ideologies. Likewise, prominent theorists of nationalism ( T. Blank & Schmidt, 2003; Feshbach, 1994; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989) defined it in terms of a doctrine of national superiority, dominance, and militarism combined with positive in-group regard and hostile out-group treatment, implicitly echoing the doctrinal and relational features. Further, research on gender ideologies highlight how it encompasses a nonegalitarian ideology that assumes binary gender roles based on essential biological differences (i.e., the doctrine) and malicious treatment of individuals who deviate from the expectations of this doctrine ( Glick & Fiske, 2001; Hammond and Overall, 2013; Saguy et al., 2021). Likewise, in a comprehensive account of the cognitive dynamics of religion ( Barrett, 2007), Whitehouse (2000, 2004) proposed that religiosity can cluster into two distinct modes: "doctrinal" and "imagistic." In the doctrinal mode, religion focuses on transmitting and retaining highly complex bodies of knowledge (e.g., through theological texts and teaching). In the imagistic mode, religion takes the form of highly emotionally arousing events and rituals that provoke feelings of interpersonal connection and oneness. These modes, empirically corroborated through anthropological research ( Whitehouse, 2002; Whitehouse & Martin, 2004), map on nicely to the psychological framework presented here, which emphasizes ideologies' doctrinal components on one hand and relational features on the other. Thus, even a cursory view of a range of ideologies reveals that both doctrinal and relational features characterize the psychological structure of ideologies, reappearing in multiple guises that can be analyzed in a content-free fashion.

Psychology of Ideology

Psychological differences according to ideological content

As noted earlier, psychological research on ideologies has largely focused on the discrepant content of ideologies rather than the commonalities in the cognitive style these can impose on followers. As a result, the most popular experimental design has examined individuals who identify with the mission of a particular ideology and compared them with those who self-identify with the opposing ideology. In political psychology, this has taken the form of methodological comparisons between self-identified political conservatives and liberals. In other social-psychology subfields, this approach is featured in the comparison between religious and atheist individuals or between racist and nonracist individuals.

Content-based comparisons have yielded a profound theoretical and empirical debate between researchers who identify psychological differences between right-wing and left-wing individuals (e.g., Baron & Jost, 2019; Jost, 2017; Jost et al., 2003; Hibbing et al., 2014; Nilsson & Jost, 2020) and researchers who challenge the widely held assumption that such differences exist (e.g., Bakker et al., 2020; Brandt et al., 2014; Crawford, 2017; Crawford & Brandt, 2019, 2020; Crawford & Pilanski, 2014; Ditto et al., 2019; Frimer et al., 2017; Greenberg & Jonas, 2003). The findings from the political-psychology literature have illustrated that direct comparisons of right-wing versus left-wing participants do generally reveal psychological differences in personality, motivations, values, and cognition. For instance, research on the personality and motivations of political conservatives and liberals in the United States has shown that conservatives tend to self-report a greater need for closure, structure, order, certainty, and absence of ambiguity (meta-analysis by Jost et al., 2018; see also Carney et al., 2008; Gerber et al., 2010; Jost, 2017; Jost et al., 2009). Political liberals, on the other hand, report a more favorable attitude toward science ( J. M. Blank & Shaw, 2015; Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016; Tullett et al., 2016; but see also Washburn & Skitka, 2018) and tend to perform better on tests of cognitive ability ( Choma & Hanoch, 2017; Deary et al., 2008; Eidelman et al., 2012; Heaven et al., 2011; Hodson & Busseri, 2012; Onraet et al., 2015; Yilmaz & Saribay, 2017). Political liberals are also more resistant to conspiracies or misinformation ( Jost et al., 2018; Miller et al., 2016; Pennycook & Rand, 2020; Pfattheicher & Schindler, 2016; Sterling et al., 2016). Further research into values and moral foundations has suggested that political conservatives adopt more "binding" values such as sanctity, authority, and loyalty, whereas political liberals value more "individualizing" forms of morality that emphasize fairness and care ( Graham et al., 2009, 2011; Kim et al., 2012; Nilsson & Erlandsson, 2015; Van Leeuwen & Park, 2009; however, for evidence that ideology drives moral intuitions, see Hatemi et al., 2019). The emerging field of political neuroscience ( Haas et al., 2020; Jost et al., 2014; Nam, 2020; Smith & Warren, 2020; Zmigrod & Tsakiris, 2021) has even revealed differences between political liberals and conservatives in their neurobiology (e.g., Amodio et al., 2007; Haas et al., 2017; Kanai et al., 2011; Nam et al., 2018; Oxley et al., 2008; Schreiber et al., 2013) and in their neural responses to affective ( Carraro et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2011), facial ( Vigil, 2010), and political ( Leong et al., 2020) content. Although this is far from an exhaustive review, most outlooks on the literature will conclude that when politically opposed groups are compared on the basis of self-categorizations of ideological affiliations, psychological differences between them do emerge.

Psychological commonalities in ideological thinking

At the same time, however, when studies have taken an approach that emphasizes ideological extremity rather than purely focusing on the mission of the ideology, a more complex picture has surfaced. From a methodological standpoint, these studies often use measurement tools that tap into continuous individual differences in ideological attachment, extremity, and partisan radicality. These investigations have concentrated on the structure of ideological adherence and have illustrated that it is fruitful to study ideological thinking in a way that is largely agnostic as to the aims of the ideology ( Zmigrod et al., 2021)-this reveals remarkable psychological commonalities in ideological thinking across a variety of ideological domains.

There have been two lines of research within psychology that have revealed the striking similarities in the psychological underpinnings of ideological thinking across disparate ideological domains. The first line of research has centered on personality and motivational factors (measured via subjective self-report questionnaires), and the second has focused on the implicit cognitive factors (measured with objective neuropsychological and behavioral tasks) underlying ideological thinking.

Personality traits and motivations

In terms of personality and motivation, it is possible to synthesize common dispositions that predict ideological thinking across domains. Personality traits associated with reduced open-minded thinking ( Pennycook et al., 2019), heightened sensitivity to distress and fear (for reviews, see van Prooijen et al., 2015; van Prooijen & Krouwel, 2019), avoidance of social risk-taking ( Zmigrod et al., 2021), and intolerance of uncertainty (for review, see Hogg, 2014) have been generally implicated in ideological thinking in the context of various ideological identities and groups. Another example centers on the theory that intergroup behavior that avoids foreign, dissimilar others may be rooted in behavioral adaptations that protect against infection (the so-called behavioral immune system). Processes associated with disgust sensitivity and pathogen avoidance have been implicated in authoritarian worldviews, out-group derogation, and moral judgments across multiple psychological paradigms and cross-cultural ecological studies, and across multiple ideological domains (e.g., Ji et al., 2019; Karinen et al., 2019; Tracy et al., 2019; Tybur et al., 2016, 2018; Zmigrod, Ebert, et al., 2020). Recent research centered on dogmatism-measured through individuals' general receptivity to evidence and respect for credible alternative viewpoints-has shown that dogmatic individuals have highly impulsive personalities ( Zmigrod et al., 2021). Impulsivity was also implicated in individuals endorsing ideological violence to protect their in-group ( Zmigrod & Goldenberg, 2021), suggesting impulsivity contributes to ideological tendencies ( Zmigrod et al., 2021). In addition, from a motivational perspective, work on the psychology of political action has posited that motivations surrounding identity, efficacy, emotion, and morality may be core motivations for ideological action across a diversity of ideological contexts ( Cichocka et al., 2018; Osborne et al., 2019; Pliskin et al., 2020; Van Bavel & Pereira, 2018; van Zomeren, 2016).

It is noteworthy that an immense array of personality traits have been studied in relation to one ideological domain (e.g., political conservatism) but not rigorously examined in others, making extrapolation of the psychological correlates of "ideological thinking" challenging. For instance, the role of intuitive versus analytic thinking has been examined in the context of political conservatism and religiosity (for a meta-analysis, see Pennycook et al., 2016), but its role in relation to dogmatism and ideological extremity has not been carefully addressed. Likewise, the cognitive science of religion has discussed the role of mentalizing abilities in predicting religious and paranormal beliefs (e.g., Gervais, 2013; Jack et al., 2016; Norenzayan et al., 2012; Van Elk & Aleman, 2017), but this has not been coherently linked to the mind-perception literature in intergroup psychology (e.g., Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Hackel et al., 2014). Conducting research that assesses multiple ideologies simultaneously will help structure future research on the personality antecedents of ideological orientations in a more fruitful direction, allowing delineation of what psychological processes are specific to particular ideologies and which can be evident in adherence to any powerful ideology.

Cognitive dispositions

With respect to the cognitively oriented research, a number of cognitive traits have been recently shown to confer susceptibility to ideological thinking ( Zmigrod, 2020). Three notable examples are cognitive inflexibility, impaired strategic information processing, and slower perceptual evidence processing. First, an emerging line of research suggests that a tendency toward cognitive rigidity can foster ideological rigidity. Cognitive inflexibility is operationalized in the neuropsychological literature as a difficulty with switching between modes of thinking and adapting to changing environmental contingencies ( Zmigrod, 2020). Mental inflexibility has been implicated in extreme ideological identities (for review, see Zmigrod, 2020) in the context of politics ( Zmigrod, Rentfrow, & Robbins, 2020), nationalism ( Zmigrod et al., 2018), religion ( Zmigrod, Rentfrow, Zmigrod, & Robbins, 2019), dogmatism ( Zmigrod, Zmigrod, et al., 2019), and a willingness to endorse violence and self-sacrifice ( Zmigrod, Rentfrow, & Robbins, 2019). Importantly, cognitive rigidity was manifest on both the extreme right and the extreme left ( Zmigrod, Rentfrow, & Robbins, 2020), suggesting that ideological extremity may be as psychologically important as the mission of the ideology. These studies quantified cognitive inflexibility with objective behavioral tests of executive function and perception, in which participants were asked to continuously change between mental rules and categories. Consequently, findings using behavioral experimental paradigms are not susceptible to biases of social-desirability, self-perception, and social norms that can become manifest in self-report questionnaires. This line of research illustrates that individual differences in cognitive inflexibility can confer susceptibility to ideological thinking ( Zmigrod, 2020).

Furthermore, recent research examining the cognitive profiles of a range of ideological attitudes found that impairments in strategic information processing were linked to more conservative, authoritarian, nationalistic, and religious tendencies ( Zmigrod et al., 2021). 7 This impairment was also evidenced in individuals who were more willing to support extreme progroup actions to protect their in-group. These impairments were manifest in performance on executive-functioning tasks associated with working memory and planning, illustrating that there are common cognitive roots to ideological thinking across a range of ideological contexts. A difficulty in planning and executing complex action sequences in basic perception may thus increase people's reliance on coherent collective dogmas that simplify the world into absolute explanations and clear behavioral prescriptions.

The study of low-level perception and cognition has further revealed that how the mind processes perceptual evidence can confer susceptibility to ideological dogmatism across a diversity of ideologies. Using drift-diffusion modeling of trial-by-trial performance on two forced-choice tasks illustrated that slower evidence accumulation of perceptual data is linked to a dogmatic thinking style ( Zmigrod et al., 2021). This suggests that nondogmatic individuals are better able to process and accumulate evidence in perceptual decision-making contexts generally, and this may translate to a better ability to process evidence in ideological settings as well. Notably, these perceptual phenomena occur on the order of milliseconds and are not under conscious control. Consequently, the findings suggest that individual differences in low-level visual information processing can reveal variations in ideological thinking as well.

Finally, the analysis of perceptual decision-making processes demonstrated that response caution-a perceptual preference for accuracy over speed in tasks in which both accuracy and speed are rewarded-was related to more socially conservative and nationalistic worldviews ( Zmigrod et al., 2021). Cautious perceptual strategies may therefore translate into cautious (i.e., conservative) ideological beliefs. Studying the relationship between ideological attitudes and individual differences in low-level perceptual and cognitive processing can therefore help elucidate the underpinnings of ideological thinking.

Conceptual and Methodological Directions

An emergent conclusion from the observed similarities of diverse ideologies is that we should study ideological thinking and related processes under one umbrella. An appreciation of the psychological structure of ideological thinking can be empirically productive and theoretically valuable. How can this be achieved? Let us examine the directions which this emerging field can take in terms of (a) conceptual and (b) methodological future avenues.

Developing a conceptual research agenda

Building on this integrative framework, a clear guiding research agenda for this burgeoning field can be constructed. In particular, one can envision three major research questions that need to be addressed:

1. Antecedents: What psychological traits and experiences confer susceptibility to ideological thinking?

2. Processes: What psychological factors shape the intensity of ideological immersion and choice of ideology?

3. Consequences: What are the psychological and neurocognitive consequences of ideological engagement?

Focusing and delineating research efforts along these lines will allow us to address the nuanced processes that confer initial susceptibility to internalizing ideological doctrines, as well as the mechanisms that reinforce or dampen these effects. It will enable the field to construct comprehensive, causally minded theories and paradigms that can be positioned on par with other major scientific endeavors. When we adopt a framework that seriously engages with the psychological phenomena that underpin political thought and action, we can formulate socially pertinent questions that address the bidirectional links between ideologies and cognition.

To advance an integrated psychology of ideology that taps at these questions, it is essential to collaboratively examine the psychology of religion, political psychology, moral psychology, intergroup psychology, and the study of obedience, conformity, and prejudice. This will allow us to evaluate psychological processes that have been hypothesized to be ideology-specific and to interrogate whether these are truly ideology-specific or have simply not been studied (sufficiently) in the context of other ideologies. We can then ask the essential questions, that is, why some psychological traits are predictive of adherence to certain ideologies and not others and why some psychological dispositions are predictive of extremity regardless of the ideology's content. It is only through a rigorous integrative theoretical approach that we can design empirical tests that can truly begin to tap at mechanistic explanations in the psychology of ideology. Furthermore, it will allow researchers to build theories that directly address the research questions about the origins, processes, and consequences of engagement with ideological doctrines. We can thereby achieve greater precision in our mechanistic accounts of the ideological mind-arriving at general principles as well as nuanced trajectories that consider where, when, and why the doctrine of the ideology can shape its impact on the minds of adherents.

A multitude of excellent examples in recent research have begun separating the content and structure of ideologies, and thereby elucidated the psychological antecedents, processes, and consequences of ideological engagement. With regard to questions of the cognitive antecedents of ideology, Peterson and Iyengar (2021) found that both political liberals and political conservatives exhibit sincere motivated reasoning of misinformation, and both are influenced by moderate insincere cheerleading effects that shape their information processing of political facts. By putting into competition alternative theories of partisan information-seeking behavior, including content-oriented and structure-based hypotheses, the authors fruitfully clarified the nature of ideological gaps in news evaluation. Another example mentioned earlier is the data-driven investigation by Zmigrod and colleagues (2021) that examined the psychological factors that predict ideological thinking in a range of ideologies. This study revealed that there are certain cognitive and personality dispositions that predict strong or dogmatic adherence to any ideology and other psychological individual differences that are specific to particular ideologies. Hence, it is possible to elucidate the patterns of psychological commonalities and discrepancies by adopting a large-scale data-driven approach that facilitates robust comparisons between the psychological origins of different ideologies.

In relation to questions on the psychological processes of ideological cognition, recent research on ideological social action in online social networks has been able to control for both the content and extremity of messages and study these interactive effects. This approach has revealed that moral emotions such as anger and disgust proliferate on Twitter for politicians on both the left and right of the political spectrum, whereas certain forms of moral-emotional language and expression were more impactful for conservative political elites than for liberal elites, even after controlling for ideological extremity ( Brady et al., 2019). Likewise, when examining politically engaged Twitter users, Boutyline and Willer (2017) found that individuals who were both more conservative and more extreme were more likely to seek out political homophily (affirmations of their views rather than challenges to it). Consequently, by empirically separating content and extremity, it is possible to identify their interacting and amplifying effects on behavior-and consider the (online) ecology that makes these ideological behaviors possible.

Last, with regards to research on the consequences of ideologies on neural and cognitive functioning, Krosch and Amodio (2019) showed that framing resources in terms of scarcity disrupts the neural processing of minority group faces in the context of race. Moreover, this scarcity-induced disruption to neural encoding predicted discriminatory resource allocation of White participants. This finding reveals that the way in which the brain responds to scarcity in its visual encoding of minorities can shed light on the origins of discriminatory and prejudiced behavior in times of economic stress. Hence, context matters when minds process in-groups and out-groups (also shown by Jasko et al., 2019), and so we must develop theories that integrate contextual moderators of brain processes-such as resource levels, conflict dynamics, and stressors-when considering the psychological consequences of ideological narratives. Furthermore, Goudarzi et al. (2019) indicated that economic-system justification is related to muted emotional and physiological responses to manifestations of poverty and wealth. Ideologies can thereby serve psychophysical functions, shaping the nervous system's responses to a variety of social stimuli. However, scientists of ideological thinking will need to tackle difficult questions about why we observe correspondences between social attitudes and cognitive structure and what behavioral and neural mechanisms underpin these correspondences. This endeavor will involve the use of experimental paradigms, behavioral genetics, and longitudinal and developmental studies to inform a nuanced account of how neurocognitive susceptibilities are co-opted by ideologically prone contexts ( Zmigrod, 2021).

Importantly, aiming at theoretical synthesis between ideological content and structure, and between the psychology of diverse ideological narratives, does not mean achieving absolute synchrony in how we study political, religious, and social ideologies. Rather, it propels us to develop broad paradigms that facilitate scientific coherence when we consider ideologies in tandem. Theoretical unification should not necessarily force us to draw false equivalences between ideologies ( Baron & Jost, 2019), such as between those that are used for social domination versus those promoted in the name of social equality. The key with this integrative structure-oriented approach is to empirically and theoretically test where diverse ideological movements exhibit parallels and where they differ-and through this endeavor understand who is most attracted to (certain) ideologies and why.

Methodological directions

A key step necessary to advance a theoretically mature (and conceptually adventurous) psychology of ideology is to build appropriate, and sometimes novel, assessment tools. There are three main avenues for future methodologically oriented research that will have a particularly fruitful impact on future studies. First, it is necessary to create content-free measures of ideological attitudes and behavior-tools that assesses ideological thinking without invoking the particular content of that ideology. Measures for which the content is easily substitutable with simple alterations are also valuable, such that the structure of the questions is consistent regardless of the ideology in question. This is important to be able to truly compare the psychological correlates of diverse ideological orientations. This will also allow for research outside of WEIRD (White, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) samples, which is especially critical to augment the cross-cultural and historical validity ( Henrich et al., 2010; Muthukrishna et al., 2020; Roberts et al., 2020)-and highlight instances of cultural specificity-of this emerging science.

Second, there is a need for measures that tap at the structure of ideological thinking by separately quantifying the doctrinal and relational components of ideologies (see Fig. 3 ). For instance, measuring individuals' embrace of a dogma would involve surveying their beliefs about the causes of societal conditions (tapping into the description subcomponent of the doctrine) and assessing their levels of endorsement of the dogma's prescriptions and the need to punish when there is deviance from the ideology's rules (prescription subcomponent). To evaluate the relational component, it may be necessary to measure individuals' identification and personal-identity fusion with the ideological group and the extent to which they would be ready to self-sacrifice for its causes (group-identification subcomponent). Measuring out-group derogation would involve surveying individuals' discriminatory behavioral tendencies and their endorsement of violence against nonadherents (prejudice and hostility subcomponent). There are measures that assess how one would treat nonadherents, or one's levels of prejudice, but these measures are usually not incorporated into the same study design as those that assess how evidence-resistant an individual is with regard to that ideology. This precision in the assessment of the structure of ideological thinking would facilitate research of pertinent questions, such as: How do the doctrinal and relational aspects of ideological thinking emerge in tandem within an individual? How are the doctrinal and relational elements structurally related? That is, does one temporally precede the other and how do they reinforce and amplify each other? What personal and social experiences or motivations affect the emergence of each? Do the doctrinal and relational components possess separable or similar cognitive correlates? What are the real-world manifestations of the relational component without a doctrinal component (e.g., avid sports fans 8) or the reverse (e.g., lone suicide terrorists 9)? Unpacking the structure of ideological thinking through appropriate methodological tools is therefore a key next step for this line of research.

Last, the field needs assessment tools that address the temporal dimension of ideological engagement in order to study the whole process of ideological immersion, from exposure to adherence to extremism. Each stage between initial exposure to radical adherence and self-sacrifice is likely to have overlapping as well as unique susceptibility factors, and so we need appropriate assessment tools to evaluate individuals' position at each stage. Indeed, developmental and longitudinal studies will be necessary to elucidate causal links and self-reinforcing loops between cognitive dispositions and ideological identity and behavior.

Early seeds of these approaches can already be seen in recent research and can be built on in order for the field to attain greater methodological maturity ( Rollwage et al., 2019; Zmigrod & Tsakiris, 2021). For example, a measurement tool that has grown in popularity is the identity-fusion index ( Jimenez et al., 2016), in which the participant is asked to move a small circle labeled "Me" in relation to a large static circle labeled with the name of the ideological group (e.g., a personally relevant religious group, political party, or nation). The amount of overlap between the two circles and the distance between the circles can be used as a metric of personal feelings of immersion with the ideological group. The power of this measure lies in its applicability to any ideological or social group, such that the amount of identity fusion is quantifiable and translatable between ideologies. The identity-fusion index has been used in the context of nationalism ( Bortolini et al., 2018; Jong et al., 2015; Kapitány et al., 2019; Zmigrod et al., 2018), political partisanship ( Misch et al., 2018; Zmigrod, Rentfrow, & Robbins, 2019), resilience in the face of terror ( Jong et al., 2015), and willingness to engage in extreme protest and progroup behavior ( Kunst et al., 2018; Paredes et al., 2019; Purzycki & Lang, 2019). The identity-fusion index therefore satisfies the criterion of being easily content-substitutable (by altering the group label on the large circle) and by tapping into the group identification subcomponent of ideological thinking. It can also be used in longitudinal designs (e.g., Misch et al., 2018) because it involves continuous scales that capture a large range of variation in responses and can be repeated with little interference from memory of past responding.

Another attempt to create a content-free or content-substitutable measure is the Open-Minded Cognition Scale, in which the scale items can be easily adjusted to target general, political, or religious open-minded cognition ( Price et al., 2015). For instance, the six-item scale contains items such as "I am open to considering other (political/religious) viewpoints" and "I have no patience for (political/religious) arguments I disagree with." Nonetheless, Crawford and Brandt (2018) challenged the predictive validity of the Open-Minded Cognition Scale and suggested that it may be best conceptualized as a measurement of self-perceived open-minded cognition rather than open-minded cognition itself ( Crawford & Brandt, 2018, p. 24). Consequently, there is still substantial room for methodological work that seeks to develop appropriate, reliable, and predictive measures that avoid social-desirability biases 10 and effectively tap at the psychological elements of ideological processes.

Conclusions

As the political thinker Walter Lippmann noted in 1922, the political environment in which humans are situated

is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. And although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it. (Lippmann, 1922/1949, p. 11)

Ideologies thereby "impose a certain character on the data of our senses before the data reach our intelligence" ( Lippmann, 1922/1949, p. 65)-and it is this profound mental structuring and filtering effect that renders ideological thinking an important object for rigorous investigation.

Given the kaleidoscopic diversity of mass movements, doctrines, and regimes that characterize human history and culture, it is urgent and paramount to isolate and define the core processes of ideological adherence, immersion, and extremism. A synthesis of the multitude of literatures that deal with this topic indicates that there are core commonalities in the substrates of adherence to ideological doctrines regardless of their content. But there are also likely to be important differences that are ideology-specific. A holistic and integrated psychology of ideology will be able to catch these nuances and offer pegs on which to hang and identify the various psychological dispositions and processes that propel individuals to process and respond to the world in an ideological fashion. Consequently, it is valuable to cluster these behaviors and tendencies in common terms and under unified theoretical frameworks if scientific endeavors to deconstruct these phenomena are to be meaningful and applicable. An integrated psychology of ideology will allow us to more fully comprehend the susceptibility factors-and antidotes-to worldviews that are dogmatic, extreme, and hostile to dissimilar others.

This article set out to synthesize a tractable framework through which we can comprehend ideological thinking and to demonstrate that we need to address the unfruitful balkanization of this field. A siloed field is the result of an interest in the content of ideological beliefs, such as why people believe in omnipotent supernatural forces or why they adhere to hierarchical conceptualizations of social relations. A unified field would allow us to evaluate questions about the structure of ideological thinking and thereby also to isolate the role of an ideology's content. Both levels of analysis-the structural and the substantive-can be brought to the fore, but only if we recognize and learn to quantify them effectively. To move the field forward, we must disambiguate these two levels and find ways to bring them into contact. Future studies need to carefully consider and delineate which level of analysis they are examining or neglecting. This will divulge fascinating and pertinent questions, such as why we observe repeated patterns of ideological indoctrination across cultures and throughout history and why some people are susceptible to dogmatic thinking regardless of their political leanings. How are ideologies "inherited" and communicated? How malleable are the ideologies people hold? What ideologies have the most powerful cognitive impact? Through research practices that seriously consider the multitude of ideologies that have graced (and harmed) human existence, researchers will be able to examine holistically what happens to our behavior and brains when we are inculcated with ideological mindsets. It is imperative to view ideologies (and the historical "-isms" that have been made automatically equivalent to ideologies) in a critical, creative, and reflexively nondogmatic fashion.

Hence, it may be time to reevaluate Converse's observation (quoted in the epigraph) that belief systems do not concede easily to empirical assessment. Since Converse published The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics in 1964, we have come a long way in our analytic and methodological capabilities, and so perhaps the psychology of ideology holds more promise and potential. Considering the domain-general elements of ideological thinking will enrich our theories, improve the sophistication of methodologies, and position us more firmly as a field that can build a fairer, more robust scientific community and set of scientific practices. A psychology of ideology thereby holds the potential of combating the dangers of dogmatism and entrenched beliefs both within the field and in the outside world.

Notes

1.Data can be found at http://globalreligiousfutures.org/explorer#/?subtopic=15&chartType=pie&year=2020&data_type=percentage&religious_affiliation=all&destination=to&countries=Worldwide&age_group=all&gender=all&pdfMode=false.

2.Data can be found at https://www.idea.int/data-tools/question-view/441.

3.Such as the effect of Adorno and colleagues' (1950)The Authoritarian Personality on social psychology, the effect of The American Voter by Campbell and colleagues (1960) on political science, and the poststructuralist critique of the concept of ideology in sociology.

4.The identification of dogma and identity markers as tools of ideological indoctrination approximately map onto Malešević's (2006) distinction between normative and operative ideologies, in which the normative ideology entails the central pillars of the value system, including views on the structure of past, present, and future of the society and what relationships between people and groups are taking place or ought to be to change or preserve them. The operative ideology is how the ideology operates in daily routines.

5.These two components map onto roughly (but not exactly) a distinction made in political science between issue-based (operational) political ideology and identity-based (symbolic) ideology ( Ellis & Stimson, 2012; Mason, 2018). Issue-based (operational) ideology can be thought of as the component of political ideologies concerned with policy attitudes ( Free & Cantril, 1967). Identity-based (symbolic) ideology reflects the social connection to groups that hold particular ideological labels, such as "liberal" and "conservative" ( Levitin & Miller, 1979). The difference is that the doctrinal component here is not merely about issues-it is about the embrace of an overarching dogma, and the relational component is not purely about identification with labels-it is about intergroup orientations that dictate how adherents and nonadherents are treated. The components here are therefore not designed to align with existing political systems because these are meant to be broader than the practice of politics.

6. Importantly, throughout the article, the term "ideological" refers both to the property of being associated with an ideological doctrine (in the traditional sense) and to the property of having the doctrinal and relational characteristics of ideologies as defined here.

7. Notably, authoritarianism was measured with an assessment of people's favoring of values of conformity and obedience, and religiosity was evaluated on the basis of people's frequency of prayer, ritual attendance, and subjective sense of religion's importance-consequently, these ideological worldviews were separate from overtly right-wing attitudes.

8. However, arguably some fans are also resistant to information of poor performance by their team, and so the doctrinal aspect can exist in sports-group memberships as well.

9. Nonetheless, even when an individual is supposedly purely motivated by ideology, there is often the hope of social connectedness or recognition in the afterlife, and so the relational aspect can be evident here as well.

10. Indeed, a pictorial measure such as the identity-fusion index helps ameliorate these kinds of biases because there are not strong social norms regarding how "fused" one ought to be with a particular group on a continuous scale from 0 to 100.

Transparency

Action Editor: Laura A. King

Editor: Laura A. King

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.

Funding: This work was supported by Gates Cambridge Trust.

References

Crawford J. T., Brandt M. J. (2018, [ February 7). Testing the predictive validity of the open-minded cognition scale. PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/v8um2 [ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Feshbach S. (1994). Nationalism, patriotism, and aggression: A clarification of functional differences. In Huesmann L. R. (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 275-291). Plenum Press. 10.1007/978-1-4757-9116-7_12 [[ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Haas I. J., Warren C., Lauf S. J. (2020). Political neuroscience: Understanding how the brain makes political decisions. In Thompson W. R. (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.948 [[ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Hodson G., Busseri M. A. (2012). Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact. Psychological Science, 23, 187-195. 10.1177/0956797611421206 [[ PubMed] [ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Kumar K. (2006). Ideology and sociology: Reflections on Karl Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 169-181. [ Google Scholar]

Lippmann W. (1949). The world outside and the pictures in our heads. In Lippmann W. Public opinion (pp. 3-32). MacMillan Co. 10.1037/14847-001 (Original work published 1922) [[ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Muthukrishna M., Henrich J., Slingerland E. (2020). Psychology as a historical science. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 717-749. 10.1146/annurev-psych-082820-111436 [[ PubMed] [ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Pennycook G., Cheyne J. A., Koehler D., Fugelsang J. A. (2019). On the belief that beliefs should change according to evidence: Implications for conspiratorial, moral, paranormal, political, religious, and science beliefs. PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/a7k96 [[ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Zmigrod L., Ebert T., Goetz F., Rentfrow P. J. (2020). The psychological and socio-political consequences of infectious diseases. PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/84qcm [[ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Articles from Perspectives on Psychological Science are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Psychology of Ideology: Unpacking the Psychological Structure of Ideological Thinking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The psychological study of ideology has traditionally emphasized the content of ideological beliefs, guided by questions about what people believe, such as why people believe in omniscient gods or fascist worldviews. This theoretical focus has led to ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #11 Reasons for Belief :  Patternicity 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #11 Reasons for Belief :  Patternicity 

# data[].attributes.body
Patternicity Definition: Patternicity is the perception of significant connections or patterns in seemingly random or confusing material, which leads people to form beliefs.

Connection: Patternicity draws attention to the way that people naturally look for patterns and significance in their surroundings, which can occasionally result in the impression of incorrect causal relationships. This patternicity is frequently exploited by pseudoscientific assertions, which use cherry-picked data or anecdotal evidence to imply causality when none exists. For instance, recognizing faces in clouds or deriving meaning from sequences of random numbers. Acknowledging the impact of pattern perception on the development of beliefs advises people to view statements with caution and look for unbiased proof before taking patterns at face value. It helps prevent the adoption of pseudoscientific conclusions based just on observed patterns and encourages critical thinking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why do people see faces in nature, interpret window stains as human figures, hear voices in random sounds generated by electronic devices or find conspiracies in the daily news? A proximate cause is the priming effect, in which our brain and senses are prepared to interpret stimuli according to an expected model. UFOlogists see a face on Mars. Religionists see the Virgin Mary on the side of a building. Paranormalists hear dead people speaking to them through a radio receiver. Conspiracy theorists think 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration. Is there a deeper ultimate cause for why people believe such weird things? There is. I call it "patternicity," or the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise.

Traditionally, scientists have treated patternicity as an error in cognition. A type I error, or a false positive, is believing something is real when it is not (finding a nonexistent pattern). A type II error, or a false negative, is not believing something is real when it is (not recognizing a real pattern-call it "apatternicity"). In my 2000 book How We Believe (Times Books), I argue that our brains are belief engines: evolved pattern-recognition machines that connect the dots and create meaning out of the patterns that we think we see in nature. Sometimes A really is connected to B; sometimes it is not. When it is, we have learned something valuable about the environment from which we can make predictions that aid in survival and reproduction. We are the ancestors of those most successful at finding patterns. This process is called association learning, and it is fundamental to all animal behavior, from the humble worm C. elegans to H. sapiens.

Unfortunately, we did not evolve a Baloney Detection Network in the brain to distinguish between true and false patterns. We have no error-detection governor to modulate the pattern-recognition engine. (Thus the need for science with its self-correcting mechanisms of replication and peer review.) But such erroneous cognition is not likely to remove us from the gene pool and would therefore not have been selected against by evolution.

In a September paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, "The Evolution of Superstitious and Superstition-like Behaviour," Harvard University biologist Kevin R. Foster and University of Helsinki biologist Hanna Kokko test my theory through evolutionary modeling and demonstrate that whenever the cost of believing a false pattern is real is less than the cost of not believing a real pattern, natural selection will favor patternicity. They begin with the formula pb > c, where a belief may be held when the cost (c) of doing so is less than the probability (p) of the benefit (b). For example, believing that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is only the wind does not cost much, but believing that a dangerous predator is the wind may cost an animal its life.

The problem is that we are very poor at estimating such probabilities, so the cost of believing that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind is relatively low compared with the opposite. Thus, there would have been a beneficial selection for believing that most patterns are real.

Through a series of complex formulas that include additional stimuli (wind in the trees) and prior events (past experience with predators and wind), the authors conclude that "the inability of individuals-human or otherwise-to assign causal probabilities to all sets of events that occur around them will often force them to lump causal associations with non-causal ones. From here, the evolutionary rationale for superstition is clear: natural selection will favour strategies that make many incorrect causal associations in order to establish those that are essential for survival and reproduction."

In support of a genetic selection model, Foster and Kokko note that "predators only avoid nonpoisonous snakes that mimic a poisonous species in areas where the poisonous species is common" and that even such simple organisms as " Escherichia coli cells will swim towards physiologically inert methylated aspartate presumably owing to an adaptation to favour true aspartate."

Such patternicities, then, mean that people believe weird things because of our evolved need to believe nonweird things.
Note: This article was originally published with the title, "Patternicity".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless Noise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why the brain believes something is real when it is not

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #12 Reasons for Belief :  Perception and Observation

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #12 Reasons for Belief :  Perception and Observation

# data[].attributes.body
Perception and Observation Definition: Observation bias is defined as Perception and observation are aspects that influence belief, according to awareness, where people interpret information depending on their personal experiences and prejudices.

Connection: It shows people's views are shaped by their own experiences and observations, which frequently result in their subjective interpretations of reality. This prejudice can be used by pseudoscientific claims by selectively providing observations or anecdotal material to bolster their arguments. For example, a person receiving a pseudoscientific treatment and experiencing a placebo effect can interpret it as proof of its effectiveness encouraging people to critically assess their interpretations and look for supporting evidence because it acknowledges the importance of perception and observation in creating beliefs. It encourages a more critical method of information evaluation by highlighting the superiority of objective knowledge and evidence over personal experiences when determining the truthfulness of ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For decades, research has shown that our perception of the world is influenced by our expectations. These expectations, also called "prior beliefs," help us make sense of what we are perceiving in the present, based on similar past experiences. Consider, for instance, how a shadow on a patient's X-ray image, easily missed by a less experienced intern, jumps out at a seasoned physician. The physician's prior experience helps her arrive at the most probable interpretation of a weak signal.

The process of combining prior knowledge with uncertain evidence is known as Bayesian integration and is believed to widely impact our perceptions, thoughts, and actions. Now, MIT neuroscientists have discovered distinctive brain signals that encode these prior beliefs. They have also found how the brain uses these signals to make judicious decisions in the face of uncertainty.

"How these beliefs come to influence brain activity and bias our perceptions was the question we wanted to answer," says Mehrdad Jazayeri, the Robert A. Swanson Career Development Professor of Life Sciences, a member of MIT's McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the study.

The researchers trained animals to perform a timing task in which they had to reproduce different time intervals. Performing this task is challenging because our sense of time is imperfect and can go too fast or too slow. However, when intervals are consistently within a fixed range, the best strategy is to bias responses toward the middle of the range. This is exactly what animals did. Moreover, recording from neurons in the frontal cortex revealed a simple mechanism for Bayesian integration: Prior experience warped the representation of time in the brain so that patterns of neural activity associated with different intervals were biased toward those that were within the expected range.

MIT postdoc Hansem Sohn, former postdoc Devika Narain, and graduate student Nicolas Meirhaeghe are the lead authors of the study, which appears in the July 15 issue of Neuron.
Ready, set, go
Statisticians have known for centuries that Bayesian integration is the optimal strategy for handling uncertain information. When we are uncertain about something, we automatically rely on our prior experiences to optimize behavior.

"If you can't quite tell what something is, but from your prior experience you have some expectation of what it ought to be, then you will use that information to guide your judgment," Jazayeri says. "We do this all the time."

In this new study, Jazayeri and his team wanted to understand how the brain encodes prior beliefs, and put those beliefs to use in the control of behavior. To that end, the researchers trained animals to reproduce a time interval, using a task called "ready-set-go." In this task, animals measure the time between two flashes of light ("ready" and "set") and then generate a "go" signal by making a delayed response after the same amount of time has elapsed.

They trained the animals to perform this task in two contexts. In the "Short" scenario, intervals varied between 480 and 800 milliseconds, and in the "Long" context, intervals were between 800 and 1,200 milliseconds. At the beginning of the task, the animals were given the information about the context (via a visual cue), and therefore knew to expect intervals from either the shorter or longer range.

Jazayeri had previously shown that humans performing this task tend to bias their responses toward the middle of the range. Here, they found that animals do the same. For example, if animals believed the interval would be short, and were given an interval of 800 milliseconds, the interval they produced was a little shorter than 800 milliseconds. Conversely, if they believed it would be longer, and were given the same 800-millisecond interval, they produced an interval a bit longer than 800 milliseconds.

"Trials that were identical in almost every possible way, except the animal's belief led to different behaviors," Jazayeri says. "That was compelling experimental evidence that the animal is relying on its own belief."

Once they had established that the animals relied on their prior beliefs, the researchers set out to find how the brain encodes prior beliefs to guide behavior. They recorded activity from about 1,400 neurons in a region of the frontal cortex, which they have previously shown is involved in timing.

During the "ready-set" epoch, the activity profile of each neuron evolved in its own way, and about 60 percent of the neurons had different activity patterns depending on the context (Short versus Long). To make sense of these signals, the researchers analyzed the evolution of neural activity across the entire population over time, and found that prior beliefs bias behavioral responses by warping the neural representation of time toward the middle of the expected range.

"We have never seen such a concrete example of how the brain uses prior experience to modify the neural dynamics by which it generates sequences of neural activities, to correct for its own imprecision. This is the unique strength of this paper: bringing together perception, neural dynamics, and Bayesian computation into a coherent framework, supported by both theory and measurements of behavior and neural activities," says Mate Lengyel, a professor of computational neuroscience at Cambridge University, who was not involved in the study.
Embedded knowledge
Researchers believe that prior experiences change the strength of connections between neurons. The strength of these connections, also known as synapses, determines how neurons act upon one another and constrains the patterns of activity that a network of interconnected neurons can generate. The finding that prior experiences warp the patterns of neural activity provides a window onto how experience alters synaptic connections. "The brain seems to embed prior experiences into synaptic connections so that patterns of brain activity are appropriately biased," Jazayeri says.

As an independent test of these ideas, the researchers developed a computer model consisting of a network of neurons that could perform the same ready-set-go task. Using techniques borrowed from machine learning, they were able to modify the synaptic connections and create a model that behaved like the animals.

These models are extremely valuable as they provide a substrate for the detailed analysis of the underlying mechanisms, a procedure that is known as "reverse-engineering." Remarkably, reverse-engineering the model revealed that it solved the task the same way the monkeys' brain did. The model also had a warped representation of time according to prior experience.

The researchers used the computer model to further dissect the underlying mechanisms using perturbation experiments that are currently impossible to do in the brain. Using this approach, they were able to show that unwarping the neural representations removes the bias in the behavior. This important finding validated the critical role of warping in Bayesian integration of prior knowledge.

The researchers now plan to study how the brain builds up and slowly fine-tunes the synaptic connections that encode prior beliefs as an animal is learning to perform the timing task.

The research was funded by the Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering, the Netherlands Scientific Organization, the Marie Sklodowska Curie Reintegration Grant, the National Institutes of Health, the Sloan Foundation, the Klingenstein Foundation, the Simons Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, and the McGovern Institute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MIT neuroscientists have identified distinctive patterns of neural activity that encode prior beliefs and help the brain make sense of uncertain signals coming from the outside world. For the first time, they showed that prior beliefs exert their effect on behavior by warping the representation of sensory events in the brain.