Questionable Experts and a Gullible Media

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Today I will touch on a very sensitive but important topic; that of the many so-called experts, paraded interminably on all manner of subjects by our elitist, gullible and intellectually challenged media. For the purposes of this article, I will define an expert as "a person with an advanced degree with skill in, or knowledge of a particular subject (Oxford English Dictionary)." Expertise, is the dexterity of an individual to apply the acquired skill or knowledge, and communicate it effectively. Based on the Oxford English Dictionary definition of expert, we, Canadians, prefer to call the vast majority of advanced degree holders, experts. Whether the so-called experts have the expertise to use and communicate their knowledge effectively, is the million-dollar question. In Canada today, you hear from all sorts of experts, in fields as widely varied as governance, science, health, politics, military, security, communication, labour, energy, sanitation, finance, marketing, etc. The big question is, do the cited experts really have the expertise? What does it really mean to be a legitimate expert in a specific area, judged by a common sense approach? There are many kinds of experts in all areas. Some experts have a moderate amount of knowledge about a large number of fields. Other experts have extreme, in-depth knowledge about a tiny area in a particular field, but perhaps not that much about other areas of the same field. For example, someone who is an expert in chemical engineering is not an expert in structural civil engineering or engineering-physics. A medical doctor expert in cancer studies is not an expert on retroviruses, etc. and there are many similar examples in other professional fields. Unfortunately, there are also many fake experts, and like poisonous mushrooms, they are difficult to detect without direct interaction. Generally speaking, a legitimate expert is someone who: - has education in the general field; - has done recent research into the specific area in the field; - makes claims that are supported by systematic reviews of the research literature; - has a good track record when it comes to being accurate on specific field issues; - has not promoted bullshit in some other areas; and - does not have any overt and undisclosed conflicts of interest. So the questions arise; how to evaluate an alleged expert? And how to distinguish a genuine expert from a fake one? How can you spot a phony expert referenced by elitist and syndicated journalists to give a deceptive veneer of credibility to their otherwise unreasonable claims? This is often more difficult than it seems, especially for the general public. However, there are a few red flags that should increase skepticism about an alleged expert. One can roughly divide experts into two categories. The first category of expert relies on deductive methods. For instance, if multiple, well-designed randomized controlled trials point to one conclusion, but the alleged expert claims the opposite, then this alleged expert is probably a fake expert. A relevant example is the recent COVID-19 pandemic which has upended our lives and beaten us down. And just as we saw light at the end of the tunnel (thanks to vaccines, we were told), Omicron arrived. Surrounded by politicians dithering in the face of this new threat to their political lives, politicians advised by 'expert' medical professionals primarily concerned with hospital capacities rather than curing patients, the stage was set. 'Experts' in charge were fixated on vaccinations and testing, using corrupted statistics to intimidate the public. In Ontario, the expert advisory body on Omicron was running around like the proverbial headless chicken. The science Expert Advisor Dr. Peter Juni, since gone to greener pastures in England, was blowing his horn loudly, giving spaced-out advice to ordinary people, seemingly preparing us for further bleak and dark times ahead. This high priest 'expert' was really preaching doomsday when there was none. Canadians were encouraged to be 'fully vaccinated' to beat the Covid pandemic with its Greek alphabet mutations; the famous two doses of sometimes cocktail vaccinations. As this did not seem to be enough, a booster shot was recommended to protect us from the pandemic and end it once and for all. Now we are told that this was a false assumption. So may one ask where the expertise was in all this? The question was, how much longer would Canadians continue to believe in "expertise" that changed daily at the whim of the 'expert' science table, at times completely contradicting itself. Canada's top doctor, Dr. Theresa Tam, said employers must provide the best masks and ventilation possible. So now vaccinated or not, you needed the mask of all masks to stay protected?! The second category of expert relies on probabilistic methods. Being systematically wrong on many field issues increases the risk that an alleged expert would be wrong in the area under discussion. As an example from the political field, take an article run last week by journalist Catherine Cullen from CBC News "Legal experts accuse Leslyn Lewis of 'fearmongering' over WHO pandemic pact". Conservative leadership hopeful Leslyn Lewis, a member of parliament, who holds a PhD in International Law, has outlined a potentially damaging scenario: if Canada signs the World Health Organization's Pandemic Response Treaty, Canadians' travel and medication choices could be restricted, the Constitution could be suspended, and it could all pave the way to a global government. Several legal "experts" referred to in the article were quick to denounce her claims as completely untrue. "This is nothing more than fearmongering. There is nothing to support these really strong assertions," said Prof. Timothy Caulfield, Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta. A quick scan of Timothy Caulfield's Twitter account shows dismissive and divisive language against those who have chosen not to be vaccinated against COVID-19, and articles with headlines like: "No, You're Not Entitled To Your Own Opinion." The other 'expert' quoted, Dr. Steven Hoffman, Dahdaleh, Distinguished Chair in Global Governance & Legal Epidemiology, collaborates with the WHO on a project about antimicrobial resistance but said he receives no funding from the organization. Yet another 'expert', Prof. Kelley Lee, Canada Research Chair in Global Health Governance at Simon Fraser University said: "The bottom line is that her claims are so far from the truth that it's actually hard to know where to begin," However, when academics and journalists are connected with the Trudeau Foundation, have active and historic working relationships with the WHO, and have employment income stemming directly from the federal government, the potential for conflicts of interest and bias cannot be denied. In case you haven't noticed, recommendation from the United Nation and its affiliated organizations seem to be taken as gospel truth in Canada lately, and used as the basis for making domestic legislation. In conclusion, to reach the most reliable evaluation, both deductive and probabilistic arguments have to be taken into account in an expert's testimony. You, the public, being fed a lot of 'expert' information today, face a difficult task in separating the wheat from the chaff. Finding the truth is rarely easy, but it is made significantly more difficult when deliberately clouded. So be alert and be prepared.