While his COVID output and enabling of MAHA doctors should be remembered, it’s not clear why anyone should pay attention to anything Dr. John Ioannidis says moving forward. However, he recently penned an article that provides a good opportunity to discuss a manipulative rhetorical technique known as DARVO. Though it was originally conceived to describe abusive relationships, DARVO has become a common tactic in supposed scientific debate and is worth discussing for that reason.
According to one description:
DARVO is an acronym for manipulative communication: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Coined by psychologist Jennifer Freyd in the 1990s, DARVO describes how individuals may evade accountability when confronted with their wrongdoings.
DARVO combines elements of gaslighting and blame-shifting. Instead of addressing the issue, perpetrators deny the facts, attack the accuser, and position themselves as the true victim while portraying the original victim as the aggressor.
DARVO is more than just “someone overreacting”—it’s a calculated narrative shift often used by people who benefit from not being held accountable. It serves to evade responsibility, maintain power and control, discredit the person raising the alarm, and centralize sympathy and attention back on the perpetrator.
Dr. Ioannidis’s article was titled Misinformation Blaming and Labelling May Damage Health, Science and Policy Making, which prompted this response from Kevin Kretsch:
Misinformation labelling may damage health, science, and policy making? Gee, that sounds an awful lot like somebody wants misinformation to be left alone and never called out. I wonder why that might be?
That was my reaction too, and Dr. Ioannidis’s article did not disappoint. It contained the following paragraph:
Blaming credentialed, legitimate scientists can also backfire. Rigorous organized scepticism and evidence-based questioning are quintessential for science and desirable. Emotional pre-emptive rejection of scientific arguments may suggest to the public that science is an authoritarian, even retaliatory, process. Some scientists self-anoint themselves as “science-based” communicators and obsessively blame other legitimate scientists with whom they disagree, even without clear evidentiary basis for such accusations. They may attack opponents as quacks. For the watching public, legitimate science becomes indistinguishable from overt pseudo-science. Quackery can only benefit from having serious scientists and serious arguments relegated to the same status. Moreover, when sometimes “science-based” blamers are subsequently proven wrong, in retrospect their obsessive behavior becomes a total embarrassment for science. Science is better served by elevating standards of reasoning and methodological rigor than by engaging in rhetorical escalation or questionable analogies.
At first blush, that sounds pretty reasonable. Let’s examine it one piece at a time.
Blaming credentialed, legitimate scientists can also backfire. Rigorous organized scepticism and evidence-based questioning are quintessential for science and desirable.
I agree with all that. It’s atrocious that MAHA doctors berated and blamed legitimate scientists for literally everything bad about the pandemic, even though Dr. Anthony Fauci’s children needed bodyguards and Dr. Peter Hotez was stalked at home,
These are not the credentialed, legitimate scientists whom Dr. Ioannidis is defending however, and Dr. Ioannidis never directed such scolding at MAHA/MAGA doctors, no matter what they did. They were except from such scolding.
Emotional pre-emptive rejection of scientific arguments may suggest to the public that science is an authoritarian, even retaliatory, process. Some scientists self-anoint themselves as “science-based” communicators and obsessively blame other legitimate scientists with whom they disagree, even without clear evidentiary basis for such accusations. They may attack opponents as quacks.
Is Dr. Ioannidis blaming the credentialed, legitimate scientists here at SBM? It sure seems that way to me, and his accusations of an “emotional pre-emptive rejection of scientific arguments” perfectly describes his paragraph.
Notice, for example, his use of scare quotes to describe “science-based” communicators. He did that to preemptively discredit us and trigger emotions in his readers. The same is true for his allegation that we “obsessively blame… without clear evidentiary basis for such accusations.” That makes us sound like real jerks!
But is it true? Do we make baseless, unfounded accusations?
Dr. Ioannidis provided no examples to support his claim. He didn’t quote us or reference any of our essays. His lamentations were entirely content free. Rather than actually debating the science, Dr. Ioannidis only ever wants to talk about decorum and the format of some hypothetical scientific debate, one he refuses to actually engage in. He previously made these exact empty complaints in an article with Dr. Vinay Prasad. I guess that makes him “obsessive” too.
As Christopher Hitchens famously said, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. While that alone would be enough to dismiss Dr. Ioannidis’s accusations, fortunately we have an easily accessible track record here at SBM and in my books. We eagerly invite people to read our work and judge for themselves whether our criticisms are “without clear evidentiary basis.”
I think we provide plenty of evidence.
For example, I emailed Dr. Ioannidis before I published my first essay on him here to make sure I was representing his views fairly. He did not respond. Nonetheless, that essay contained lengthy quotes of his combined with detailed explanations of why I disagreed. That’s all I’ve done ever since, and it’s what I’m doing here too. I never just called him names.
Though he obviously has no obligation to do so, Dr. Ioannidis hasn’t responded to any of our good faith criticisms in a good faith manner. While he parades his hurt feelings, wags his finger, and sanctimoniously scolds us for our “obsession,” not once has he raised any meritorious objections to our work, and SBM is not unique in this regard.
Despite his lofty words, praising “rigorous organized scepticism and evidence-based questioning”, Dr. Ioannidis rarely, if ever, engages with his critics in a serious, sober way. Instead, he acts as if he’s our “opponent” in some game and absurdly implies that we’ve written dozens of lengthy articles that do nothing but call him a “quack.” To Dr. Ioannidis, accurately quoting him and disagreeing in any way constitutes an “attack”. Imagine his outrage if we called him a “fucking moron”, “fucking liar” or “piece of shit,” like Dr. Vinay Prasad. Dr. Ioannidis apparently has no problem with this however. He referenced their prior work on the value of civil discourse in his latest article.
If Dr. Ioannidis quotes our work and explains exactly where we he thinks we erred, it will be the first time. Of course, I’ll keep an open mind to any substantive criticism. Until then, we can recognize he is just obsessively blaming legitimate scientists with whom he disagrees, even without clear evidentiary basis for such accusations.
Simply put, he is attacking us while claiming to be attacked.
For the watching public, legitimate science becomes indistinguishable from overt pseudo-science.
Not only do I agree with this, the disgraceful blending of legitimate science with overt pseudo-science has been a core theme of my writing and of SBM long before I arrived. Dr. Gorski wrote an article in 2018 titled Quackademic Medicine and the Delusion of Being “Science-Based”, and the subtitle to We Want Them Infected warned about doctors who embraced the anti-vaccine movement.
As Dr. Gorski’s series on Lysenkoism 2.0 shows, we here at SBM talk about this every week. In contrast, Dr. Ioannidis has nothing to say about Kennedy and MAHA doctors. While he issues frequent vague warnings about potential, future threats to science, he is silent about and unbothered by what is actually happening to science today. I’ll confess I even asked ChapGPT about this. Here’s what it said:
I could not find a public statement where Ioannidis specifically rebuked Kennedy or called out his positions by name. If such a statement exists, it does not appear to be widely documented.
So, assuming Dr. Ioannidis agrees with us that Kennedy is a quack, here are some examples of prestigious professors from prestigious universities confusing the public by making legitimate science indistinguishable from overt pseudo-science.
- Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Harvard University: The Cure for Vaccine Skepticism
- Dr. Vinay Prasad, UCSF: Sabotaging RFK Jr’s Confirmation Will Increase Vaccine Hesitancy
- Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford University: RFK Jr Will Disrupt the US Medical Establishment
- Dr. Marty Makary, Johns Hopkins University: Dr. Makary On RFK Jr’s Criticism Of The ‘Medical Industrial Complex’: Saying Things ‘People Know Are True’
While Dr. Ioannidis has only criticisms of SBM, he has only praise for such MAHA/MAGA doctors. For example, not long ago he said:
I do worry that taking the stance that ‘Everything was perfect and now comes Jay Bhattacharya and destroys everything’ is very problematic. We need some shaking up and we need that to happen rigorously. If we don’t, it will be done with political means.
Dr. Ioannidis has nothing to say about their actual performance in power, or the state of science under MAGA/MAHA. He might be the only scientist in America with no opinion on the matter.
Instead of honestly grappling with the news headlines he helped enable, Dr. Ioannidis reserves his contempt and scorn for those of us who tried to warn about them. Is his view, our tiny little blog is the big problem. We need to stop being “obsessive.” We need to keep our mouths shut and lay off.
Dr. Ioannidis and MAHA/MAGA doctors
Quackery can only benefit from having serious scientists and serious arguments relegated to the same status.
Of course, people cannot always be easily dichotomized into “quacks” and “serious scientists.” Plenty of serious scientists have made unserious arguments, and despite Dr. Ioannidis’s protestations, they are not entitled a lifetime free pass where they are forever immune from criticism. A Nobel Prize winner who embraces quackery, and there have been several, deserves to be called out for embracing quackery.
For me at least, any doctor who spread COVID misinformation and/or promoted, amplified, and legitimized Kennedy/MAHA in any way has permanently forfeited the right to be taken seriously as a serious scientist ever again, no matter their past scientific acumen or current homages to “rigor” and “evidence.”
Moreover, when sometimes “science-based” blamers are subsequently proven wrong, in retrospect their obsessive behavior becomes a total embarrassment for science.
Once again, Dr. Ioannidis provided no examples of us “science-based’ blamers” being proven wrong, and so once again we can dismiss his juvenile taunts out of hand.
While Dr. Ioannidis makes unfounded allegations about us being “proven wrong,” he vastly overstates our power and influence by calling us a “a total embarrassment for science“, as if with everything that’s happening in the world right now, the entire scientific community is reading SBM articles and shaking their head in collective shame over our “obsessive behavior.”
Meanwhile, back in the real world, STAT News recently published an editorial titled I’ve Spent 40 Years In Research. I Have Never Seen A Threat To Science Like The New Grantmaking Rule. It didn’t mention SBM.
Of course, we are not perfect. I’ve readily acknowledged a couple goofs here and there, though by far the biggest mistake we made was to underestimate the threat to science. I previously discussed how I bent over backwards too long to give the benefit of the doubt to doctors who spread disinformation to trick the public about COVID, advance their own careers, and promote the MAHA/MAGA agenda.
These doctors are a total embarrassment for science and it is all they and their enablers should be known for moving forward.
Science is better served by elevating standards of reasoning and methodological rigor than by engaging in rhetorical escalation or questionable analogies.
I agree with that too. Dr. Ioannidis can prove he means it by coming on my podcast for some civil debate and discussion. There will be no rhetorical escalation or questionable analogies. We’ll play lengthy clips of his 2020 pandemic pronouncements and provide examples of him boosting MAHA/MAGA doctors. We will listen patiently, without interruption, while he defends his words, and he is welcome to do ask me to do the same. I’m ready to defend it all.
Something tells me his commitment to “elevating standards of reasoning and methodological rigor” doesn’t extend that far, however. It’s a lot easier to insult us as obsessive “science-based” blamers who are a total embarrassment for science and then accuse us of attacking him.
DARVOs are attempt to silence people, and we aren’t going to let that happen here at SBM.