Part 2 in the series “Karina Shyrokykh & Martin Kragh Disinforming About Disinformation” (Part 1 here)
By Marcello Ferrada de Noli. Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology, esp. injury epidemiology, MED.DR. (Karolinska Institute, Sweden). Founder, Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR)
I will show here that, in the context of publishing, one main bias is represented by the conflating error of mixing apples and pears. For, qualitatively, one thing is the information content, and another the perceived legitimacy regarding the information’s provider. Both should be assessed separately. Also, what the public primarily examine in a publication –what is determinant– is not the academic credentials of its author, but instead, it is the verifiability of the content in the information provided. Whether this is factual based and source-identifiable. Added a logical reasoning.
Legitimacy issues
Associate professors Karina Shyrokykh and Martin Kragh [1] say to adhere to a conceptualization of legitimacy derived of Buchanan and Keohane, [2006, cited by the authors] and that according to it, “an organization is legitimate when it is believed to have the right to conduct its activity. In other words, legitimacy is the beliefs held by audiences that an organization’s authority is appropriately exercised”. [24]
Referring to SWEDHR, they infer that it was just that “perceived” legitimacy ascribed to our organization which made us credible; to the extent –as they describe– SWEDHR “played a significant role – whether intentionally or not – in the international disinformation campaign surrounding key events in the Syrian Civil War”. [3] (As such, “the @SWEDHR case is noteworthy in itself”, they say). [id]
“The first legitimation strategy, appealing to legitimacy attributes, might be used to signal how black knight NGOs want to be perceived. It can be exploited in a deliberate strategy to appeal to positive notions such as “human rights” or “expertise,” creating an a priori positive attitude to the information disseminated by black knight NGOs.” – Shyrokykh & Kragh. [25]
SWEDHR “legitimacy attributes” (attributes to serve as “perceived legitimacy”, not necessarily being “real legitimacy” attributes, imply the authors), would be based, according to them on the following: [26]
1) on “claims” from us (Swedish doctors for human rights) about being doctors – (are we not?),
2) on that ‘human rights’ would be a universal empathetic subject (which we fight for, amidst a fierce opposition), and,
3) on that we present ourselves of being “from Sweden” (are we not?), a world’s most prestigious country as inferred by the chauvinist self-appraisal (called självgodhet in Swedish) the authors give themselves in the article:
“In addition, Sweden has a good international reputation, making ‘Sweden’ a third potential legitimacy attribute”, write the authors. [27]
Nevertheless, the elaboration above by the authors about “legitimacy attributes” would be enough to disclose the authors’ intent. It rests at the base of their article.
Meaning, the hit piece was about to problematize for the public whether we had (or not) real academic or professional merits to indulge in such analysis. And, whether we really come or not “from Sweden” (I was born in Chile…). It would be inferred by those authors’ intent, that, as we not having that “claimed” capacity as enumerated above:
a) our analyses should be considered as research rubbish,
b) the authors behind those analyses should be consider as some sort of academic impostors, and
c) the public, the diplomats, the governments, the UN Security Council, etc, should be regarded in the best case as gullible and in the worst as stupid.
In the context of human rights, the above självgodhet results more than embarrassing. Particularly in the international context:
As I explained in “Sweden’s Extraordinary Renditions and Arbitrary Detentions”, [28] the deplorable behaviour of Swedish government officials (at minister level), who collaborated secretly with the CIA in the rendition of political refugees that were transported from a Stockholm airport to a torture site in Egypt (and because of that, the United Nations HR sanctioned Sweden for violating the UN’s Absolute Ban on Torture), it is internationally documented. [29]
About “claimed” legitimacy from the part of SWEDHR
As we shall see, the issue of (SWEDHR’s) claimed competence turns paramount in the hit piece by Shyrokykh and Kragh.
In order to contextualize my observations, here I reproduce the two hypotheses in Shyrokykh & Kragh investigation:
“H1: Legitimacy attributes of black knight NGOs help their disinformation spread.
H2: Black knight NGOs’ messages related to their claimed competence spread more than those on other topics.” [30]
“Legitimacy” being generally explained as “a value whereby something or someone is recognized and accepted as right and proper”. [31]
The issue about SWEDHR “claimed legitimacy” is mantra-like repeated by Shyrokykh & Kragh along the rhetoric of their paper. It refers either to SWEDHR-related academic descriptions or related to our publications.
1. The authors problematize whether paediatric competence existed within SWEDHR in an article about the White Helmets.
It concretely refers to a professional statement asserted by Dr. Leif Elinder:
“After examination of the video material, I found that the measures inflicted upon those children, some of them lifeless, are bizarre, non-medical, non-lifesaving, and even counterproductive in terms of life-saving purposes of children”. [16]
Facts: Dr. Leif Elinder is a Swedish physician specialized in paediatric medicine. Period. To insinuate otherwise, in the sense of accusing a professional of misrepresenting his professional credentials, would simply be defamation. Although authors Shyrokykh & Kragh abstain to mention Dr. Elinder by name in their piece, he is named in the article which they specifically quote as refence. In any case, let me remind that defamation, or libel, is penalized in Sweden. [32]
2. Attributing to SWEDHR statements that are not ours:
Another unacademic routine exhibited by Shyrokykh & Kragh in deceitfully depicting our organization, is the tactic commonly known as “strawman fallacy”:[33] First they attribute to us something we have never said but said by authors which nothing has to do with our organization. And then, they “rebut” those statements making appear as if they are in a polemic with us at SWEDHR.
For example:
After the authors made clear that “the online journal The Indicter is associated with SWEDHR” [34], they write:
“On 5 April 2017, a blog post analysing footage from 2015 was posted on The Indicter blog, alleging that the “evidence contradicts allegations on Syrian gas attacks” and that the findings illustrate that, despite all the declarations of certainty, “the Syrian government is almost certainly not dropping chlorine on its people. Instead, as outlandish as it may sound, it’s quite likely that Islamist opposition forces in Syria are behind all of these events.” (The Indicter 2017a).” [35]
But the above quoted texts correspond to an opinion article submitted by Mr By Adam Larson, [36] which by no means is associated with SWEDR. Moreover, in that publication, The Indicter “Editor’s note” stated: “Mr Adam Larsson’s contribution to this debate in The Indicter is an opinion article, whose content do not necessary represent neither the editorial position of The Indicter Magazine nor of SWEDHR.”
3. On whether SWEDHR had legitimacy to utter opinions on medical issues, for instance regarding consequences of “gas attacks” and related issues.
The authors wrote: “Self-claimed expertise in specific domains can make messages seem more trustworthy compared to those on topics outside the claimed areas of competence.” [37]
Followed by, “The organization attempted to legitimize itself as a group of medical experts when presenting itself in public communication (through its blog posts, social media posts, and media interviews). It claimed competence in medicine, which it argues has helped it to establish the truth about chemical weapon use in Syria”.
Followed by, “SDHR’s communication on chemical weapons use in Syria is a prominent and lasting example of online disinformation”. [38]
The above comprises an objection that concerns me personally, as no other member of SWEDHR has –to the best of my recall– uttered opinions on this matter in our official channels.
I first clarify that my opinion was never about the chemical properties of this or that gas agent, their fabrications specs, or its delivery means, or any other technical issues, etc. What I have problematized about a couple of episodes, were aspects such as the scope and categorization of casualties attributed to those (at that moment) purported gas attacks, or the alleged timing about when those attacks would have taken place. Clearly, I never referred to chemical attacks in general, or to all alleged attacks occurred in the period. I believe that, among very many issues treated in 10 years of The Indicter publication-life, I have just mention two different alleged gas attacks in Syria at that time.
So, why, and how, authors Shyrokykh & Kragh’s intended to question my capacity to give opinions about those gas attacks episodes?
The answer to the “why” is simple and obvious: to erode SWEDHR credibility. And how would they try to do that? As explained in the Introduction section, using an argumentum ad hominem fallacy: by discrediting the person (messenger) they try to delegitimize that person’s discourse.
Let me also remind, as I said in the Introduction (section 1 in this series), that a description about who personally founded SWEDHR it was not necessary, not at all, for Shyrokykh & Kragh in making their case. Neither theoretically in arguing their hypothesis’ formulation nor in their calculations or the exposition of their results. So why they did it? I repeat my believe on that it has more to do with an attempt trying to disqualify my present opinions about the human rights and deteriorations of civil liberties, particularly in undemocratic Ukraine under the current unelected president Zelensky.
Nevertheless, it is because of what they claim about what they call the “creator of SWEDHR”, [39] which I am forced to reply describing my factual academic whereabouts.
4. Facts VS. misrepresentations
Further, to sustain a false imagen they project and propagandize about us at SWEDHR, Shyrokykh & Kragh resort to a simple trick: they lie about, or belittle, or simply hide, our true academic merits and sphere of competence in research.
“To test our hypotheses, we focus on SWEDHR and their disinformation on chemical weapons usage in Syria. SWEDHR was created in 2014 by Marcello Ferrada de Noli, a Chile-born Swedish citizen with degrees in psychiatry from Chilean and Swedish universities.” [40]
What would their readers conclude in the context? Probably something such as “Oh yes, another guy from Chile with some bachelor’s degree”?
Some years ago, I postulated in The Indicter that Fake News –now a trademark in the legacy media and other online sites serving US/NATO/EU interests– consist not only in to lie or making up something. It is also to omit events that do not fit in the news-outlet agenda, or that of the spurious interests they serve.
For example, some of Shyrokykh & Kragh’s main implied objections or “criticism” against SWEDHR are argued trough simply omitting facts about us or give an incomplete description –such in the case of describing the academic whereabouts of the SWEDHR founder. What they wrote, what they omit, results in a misrepresentation aimed to minus-valuation of my research preparation and academic experience.
Shyrokykh & Kragh’s main implied accusation derived from their omission of facts, which results in a misrepresentation or minus-valuation of my complete research preparation and academic experience. In the context of their article, it is aimed to suggest the reader that I would not have the necessary qualifications, or qualifications whatsoever, to give my opinion concerning “gas attacks” in Syria. Hence, both the legitimacy ascribed to us at SWEDHR by the public would be wrong based (or based in equivocal claims). And at the same time, our opinions would not have real legitimacy –and therefore are to be considered invalid when uttered about the happenings in discussion.
(The funny thing is that I do have two bachelor-degrees from Chile universities. But in Philosophy thou. And I am also there Profesor de Filosofía, and my academic career as professor at the University of Concepción ended with the US-backed coup d’état of General Pinochet –which I resisted, got captured, POW in the infamous Quiriquina Island, etc.). [41].
So, question one: how do I dare to give an opinion about the purported existence of specifically claimed gas attacks in Syria at that time?
Answer: by examining the distribution and epidemiology of the injuries among the purported victims.
Question two: And how would I know that?
Because I am a professor emeritus of public-health epidemiology, and my specialty being injury epidemiology in international settings –a theme of catastrophe medicine. My last assignment at the Karolinska Institute (Stockholm) was as head of the research section of cross-cultural injury epidemiology at the Dept of Public Health Sciences (Social Medicine).
On the other hand, the authors name I have Swedish degrees in psychiatry. True, I also have both a licentiatexamen i psykiatri and a medicine doktorsexamen i psykiatri from the Karolinska Institute (Sweden). But my main research was on differential forensic diagnoses of violent death. During all that period, I conducted my main empirical research work examining such fatalities occurred during a 10-years period at the Forensic Medicine Department. That was a work I published while I was Research Fellow (and lecturer) at Harvard Medical School, at the Department of Social Medicine.
With all the above, it is not the academic qualifications of authors, or that they come from countries “like Sweden”, what in true legitimize a journal article or a post in social media. It is instead the factual content of those conclusions, its verifiability. Associate professors Karina Shyrokykh and Martin Kragh misses the point. In my opinion, because their adscription to a certain legitimacy concept that confuses authors’ perceived legitimacy by the public, with the public’s genuine capacity to discern what is factual and confirmable from what is merely propaganda. Like they ostensibly do in “Black knight NGOs and international disinformation”.[1]
In my opinion, what Shyrokykh and Kragh are doing with all these manoeuvrings of argumentum-ad-hominem here and there, is to avoid doing what should be the core of their criticism of SWEDHR: to contest the conclusions we sustain in our articles and its methodically correct obtained results.
But they can’t do it. Their colleagues at CODA (another publication defending NATO interests) tried once but failed shockingly. [42]
And, what we said about “gas attacks” turned to be accurate, and even afterwards validated by the ministers of defence of the United States and France, respectively. And also, by Judge Carla Del Ponte, from the United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria (on which I develop in a next section of this series).
Recapping
Accordingly, main thesis of Shyrokykh & Kragh was that the higher legitimacy a social media account has – as perceived by the public– ergo higher the “disinformation” impact, high academic or professional stem as perceived by the public– characteristics (in this case X (Twitter).
But that goes both ways, isn’t it? I mean, to be consequent with such legitimacy thesis (as explained by the authors), to a higher legitimacy of a social media account –as perceived by the public– it conversely corresponds a higher impact of the “information” endeavour.
I mean, in the context of publishing, what Shyrokykh & Kragh are doing in their article it is like in the apples and pears conflating error. For, qualitatively, one thing is the information content, and another the perceived legitimacy regarding the information’s provider. Both should be assessed separately.
The authors, however, disparage the public at large by assuming their perception of our publication output is generally determined by “they are doctors, engaged in human rights, and –the big plus– they “are from Sweden”. What the educated public does instead, is to verify the information we give, and conversely, to examine the flaws contained in the disinformation we debunk. And a basic resource for it is the study of the sources given.
The authors, however, insult the public at large by assuming their perception of NGOs in general is because they are “doctors”, engaged in human rights, and –the “big plus”– they “are from Sweden”.
However, most of the specific public that follows geopolitical analysis are well informed people; it is simply absurd to suppose –as in the case of Shyrokykh & Kragh–that such kind of public swallow messages because of the “academic titles” the messenger might have. Secondly, at least what most people I know closer in social media (e.g., all people that I exchange DMS with, in my case), are well educated people. And what well educated people does is to verify both the information the messenger-account provides, as well as the whereabouts of the posting-messengers themselves.
The authors of “Black Knights NGOs Disinformation” add that SWEDHR spread disinformation on various topics. One example given as SWEDHR’s disinformation was that we would have “accused Sweden of bribing the UN Security Council” [43]
But, once again, the facts are with us. And once again, Shyrokykh & Kragh throw baseless accusations without giving nothing to sustain their statements, to oppose what we have said, to give a rationale regarding in what specifically we were wrong. Nothing. In the case of The Indicter’s denounce about I, as author if that article, fully stand with my statements there. For the sake of clarity, this is what I wrote: [44]
“In a few days, Sweden will be occupying a seat on the UN Security Council, including the chairmanship. This was the result of a hard campaign initiated in 2015 to gain endorsement among the voting governments. For that purpose, the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs spent 27 million SEK. The operation included the invitation to Stockholm, of UN ambassadors of a variety of poor and developing countries, and it was carried out on the most luxurious terms. This was financed with money taken from the Swedish Aid Program for poor and developing countries. The real aim and scope of the operation was kept secret, and the different steps of the campaign were not recorded.” In fact, the above is a factual information published in Epoch Times, and sourced in the Swedish news agency TT. [44]
*[Third Part of this rebuttal to “Black knight NGOs and international disinformation” available here January 7, 2025] [The present texts may be subject to updates; References to be added]
Part 1 in the series “Karina Shyrokykh & Martin Kragh Disinforming About Disinformation” is found here
REFERENCES
1. Shyrokykh, Karina & Kragh, Martin: “Black knight NGOs and international disinformation”. European Security, 17 Dec 2024.
2. Id, page 3.
3. Id., page 9.
4. Id., page 4.
5. Id., Introduction.
6. Locke, John (1689), “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (chapter ‘Of Wrong Assent, or Error’). Pauline Phemister ed., OUP Oxford, 2008. ISBN 9780199296620.
7. “SDHR” https://tinyurl.com/yex6z4p4 (Retrieved 30 Dec 2024)
8. “SWEDHR” https://tinyurl.com/bdz6zx2b (Retrieved 30 Dec 2024)
9. Wikipedia, Swedish Professors & Doctors for Human Rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Doctors_for_Human_Rights (Retrieved 28 Dec 2024)
10. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 9.
11. Id., page 13.
12. See “The Indicter Geopolitical magazine”
13. Aikin, Scott & Casey, John (2023). “Straw Man Arguments. A Study in Fallacy Theory”, page 53. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781350284708.
14. Shyrokykh & Kragh, op.cit., page 9.
15. Id., page 8.
16. Ferrada de Noli, M. “White Helmets video: Swedish doctors for human rights denounce medical malpractice and macabre ‘misuse’ of children for propaganda aims”. The Indicter 6 March 2017. (Reference “2017b” in Karina & Kragh, op.cit.)
17. Walton, Douglas (1998). “Ad Hominem Arguments”. Page 2 in section “Abusive and Circumstantial”. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 978-0-8173-0922-0.
18. The Local (Sweden), “Solidarity brings hope: why Swedish support matters for us Ukrainians”, 2 March 2022
19. Karina Shyrokykh’s Linkedin post: “Support the 47th Brigade – Join Our Effort!” (Retrieved 28 December 2028)
20. Ferrada de Noli, M. “Poltava’s geopolitical aftermath and the warmongering of Swedish elites”. The Indicter, 24 March 2021.
22. Ferrada de Noli, M., “Integrity Initiative scandal reaches Sweden amidst deceiving media debate on Martin Kragh”. The Indicter, 15 Mar 2019.
23. Ferrada de Noli, M., “Propaganda for war by proxy: Rebuttal to Martin Kragh’s flawed analysis in Swedish J Social Sciences 2020. Part 2: The falsehoods”.
24. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 9.
25. Id., page 7.
26. Id., page 8.
27. Id.
28. Ferrada de Noli M. “Sweden’s Extraordinary Renditions and Arbitrary Detentions”, The Indicter, https://theindicter.com/extraordinary-renditions-and-arbitrary-detentions/
29. Ferrada de Noli M. United Nations HR sanctioned Sweden for violating the UN’s Absolute Ban on Torture
30. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 8.
31. Chen, Jing (2016). “How petitions assist decentralized authoritarianism in China”. Lexington Books, New York. ISBN 9781498534529. Page 165.
32. Provisions on defamation – the crimes of defamation and insult – are found in chapter 5 in the Swedish criminal code.
33. “The Strawman fallacy is a logical fallacy that involves misrepresenting an opponent’s position in order to make it easier to attack.” In “Logical Fallacies –Strawman”.
34. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 10.
35. Id., page 12
36. Larson, Adam. Analysis of evidence contradicts allegations on Syrian gas attacks. The Indicter, 5 April 2017.
37. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 8.
38. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 9.
39. Id.
40. Id.
41. Ferrada de Noli M. “Fighting Pinochet”. Libertarian Books Europe, Stockholm, 2022.
42. Ferrada de Noli M. “Interference by journalists on sovereign opinions of professors, academics, and independent researchers, comprise infringements to Art 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights“. The Indicter, 7 Feb, 2020.
43. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 9.
44. Ferrada de Noli M., “How Sweden bribed its way to a seat in the UN Security Council using millions taken from the public budget for aid to poor countries”, The Indicter, 28 Dec 2026.
45. Epoch Times, “Platsen i FN:s säkerhetsråd kostade 27 miljoner”, 16 Jul 2027.