SweDoctors4HRights

Swedish Doctors 4 Human Rights, founded Sept 2014. We follow @professorsblogg @The_Indicter. YouTube: Professors channel, The Indicter channel.

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

In the context of his new signed executive order on freedom of speech VS government censorship, President Trump should also issue pardon to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: a hero in the struggle for transparency in government. He helped to unveil those in power that intended to destroy possible incriminating evidence.⬇️
#HR4All

[PALESTINE ONLINE 🇵🇸 @OnlinePalEng]

Australian healthcare workers held a sit-in to protest against the Israeli abduction of Palestinian healthcare workers from Gaza.

[sarah @sahouraxo]

BREAKING:

Israel is dropping bombs on civilian homes in South Lebanon right now.

Another blatant violation of the “ceasefire”; another undeniable war crime.

And not a peep from the international community, of course.

[Daily Romania @daily_romania]

The mainstream media right now is one of the most hated institutions in Romania

For 35 years they have lied to us without shame and worked against the interests of the Romanian people

Journalists are being booed at the protest in Romania, where more than 100,000 are attending

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

@elonmusk has neither censured them nor threatened to do so. The real reason these mainstream media employees are leaving this platform, is that now they cannot continue to post whatever narrative without the risk of being debunked & fact checked. X is now a platform for freedom of speech, not a megaphone for those in power and their pens for hire.

Follow the series on media "disinformation" in The Indicter, e.g., https://t.co/GZhHco3X0F.

#FreedomOfSpeech, #HR4All

[Irlandarra @aldamu_jo]

Reason why the Irish support the Palestinians.

Belfast Ireland 🇵🇸🇮🇪

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

“Disinformation is essentially an attempt to influence a target group’s opinions or preferences and thereby affect its behaviour”, says assoc prof @MartinKragh1 & @KarinaShyrokykh attacking @SWEDHR's free speech on X.
But, differ that with "information"? Differs the role of "disinformation" with that of "information"?  
For example, the information given in the numerous appeals by US health authorities (e.g., Dr. Fauci, or even President Biden. Or EU's Von der Leyen) to promote mass vaccination against the Covid infection –were not “essentially an attempt to influence a target group’s opinions or preferences and thereby affect its behaviour”?

Or, conversely, considering the critical opinions about anti-Covid mass vaccination –for instance by Robert Kennedy Jr. (nominated to be the next US health secretary)– would not the public estimate that what Fauci, Biden and Von del Leyen were doing was “systematic and deliberate dissemination of false or misleading information”?

In other words, would not the public think that Fauci and Biden or Von del Leyen were indulging themselves in disinformation on behalf of pharmaceutical corporates such as Pfizer?

Those who try to discredit free speech platform X are commonly serving the interest of those in power.
And I sustain that the main issue is instead whether the content of what is published or broadcasted is true or not, and how verifiable that is. Also, whether it sources are credible (if they exist).

Read it all in “What is Disinformation According to The Experts in Disinforming”, https://t.co/FiG2NpPYdw Part 3 of the series in @The_Indicter

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

The great Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope (412–323 BC) was very much upset with the state of affairs at the government of his country. As I did learn in my youth, the following dialogue ensued late in his life:

DIOGENES:
–Feeling I will die soon…
PERSON:
– That’s too bad, Diogenes.
DIOGENES:
–And when I die, please bury me in prone position (face down).
PERSON:
– Why, Diogenes?
DIOGENES:
–Because the political situation these governments have produced is such catastrophic, and so enormously convoluted.
PERSON:
–So, Diogenes?
DIOGENES:
–Sooner or later, after my departure, an enormous cataclysm shall inevitably take place. It will revolutionize the whole world of ours. And the result will be that all things shall be left rotated upside-down. Then I shall be also upturned, to reach supine position. Ergo, I will remain through the eternity facing the sky, contemplating the stars…

/2.

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

EU “Christian, democratic, religions-tolerant” countries helped a Jihadist war, ISIS flags included, to oust a SECULAR government in Syria. Now they endorse a self-proclaimed leader –they prior labelled “terrorist”– who refuses to shake hands with a female foreign minister (Annalena Baerbock, from Germany...)

In fact, this paradoxical behaviour of those "democratic" EU rulers is traced to multiple issues. E.g., Ukraine, Human Rights, censuring freedom of expression, neglecting to call national referendums on issues of our national security (as Sweden rulers regarding NATO membership), etc. ...All at the shameful service of one Deep State interests.

1/

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

In the context of publishing, one main bias is 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 –and to prevent ad hominem reading.

Further, what the public primarily examine in a publication –what is determinant�� is not the academic credentials of its author/s, but instead, it is the verifiability in the content of the information provided. Whether is factual based, source-identifiable, added a logical reasoning.

Read Part 2 in my series on disinformation VS information: "Credibility in Publishing: Does ‘Perceived Legitimacy’ Outweigh Factual Accuracy?" https://t.co/OBp0gI59Q6

A rebuttal to @MartinKragh1 & @KarinaShyrokykh

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

REFERENCES in this thread:
(See also my rebuttal "Karina Shyrokykh & Martin Kragh Disinforming About Disinformation" in https://t.co/zYeGhivvga)

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://t.co/OXZvMKAeQE  (Retrieved 30 Dec 2024)

8. “SWEDHR”  https://t.co/5A50psxNzC (Retrieved 30 Dec 2024)

9. Wikipedia, Swedish Professors & Doctors for Human Rights. https://t.co/NDOUXfeVdZ (Retrieved 28 Dec 2024)

10. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 9.

11. Id., page 13.

12. See “The Indicter Geopolitical magazine” https://t.co/iKe7kmFdqv

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. https://t.co/v1x7XE3g0M

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. https://t.co/AAHchw9hjR

19. Karina Shyrokykh’s Linkedin post: “Support the 47th Brigade – Join Our Effort!” (Retrieved 28 December 2028). https://t.co/1kuX58b3Op

20. Ferrada de Noli, M. “Poltava’s geopolitical aftermath and the warmongering of Swedish elites”. The Indicter, 24 March 2021. https://t.co/YVoPxAmxHL

21. Atlantic Council Portal, on Martin Kragh. https://t.co/RqZsUZWPV8

22. Ferrada de Noli, M., “Integrity Initiative scandal reaches Sweden amidst deceiving media debate on Martin Kragh”. The Indicter, 15 Mar 2019. https://t.co/q6zvaLz7CC

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”. https://t.co/puFZa6ErOn

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

Considering all that, their article here commented –that as I noted refers to happenings occurred nearly a decade ago in the past Syrian war– it appears more as an attempt to, also via ad hominem, to question my present work in denouncing the absence of democracy, of civil liberties and breaches of human rights in present Ukraine.

For, at the contrary the false ideological description that Shyrokykh and Kragh is doing about SWEDHR and The Indicter –where they portray us like “illiberal”, and “pro authoritarian” entities– the leitmotiv across all our activities is and has been exactly the opposite:

As The Indicter logo reads, “We denounce war crimes, human rights abuses, and State assaults to privacy and civil liberties”.

We are for Democracy, Zelensky is not.

Ukrainian kill list Myrotvorets will not succeed in silence my voice.

*[This rebuttal to “Black knight NGOs and international disinformation” continues in the next issue of The Indicter.] https://t.co/iKe7kmFdqv

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

Martin Kragh is known for his Russophobe research,[20] and he was a prominent lobbyist for Sweden’s membership in NATO. He is also listed as researcher in the Atlantic Council Portal. [21] Further, exposures regarding the British Intelligence-related secretive project “Integrity Initiative” named Martin Kragh, as the British organisation’s “Cluster Coordinator” for Sweden and Scandinavia. [22 https://t.co/q6zvaLz7CC] Which he has of course denied. And I wonder whether this new article co-authored by Kragh would be a retaliation attempt for my piece about his earlier falsehoods: “Propaganda for war by proxy: Rebuttal to Martin Kragh’s flawed analysis in Swedish J Social Sciences 2020. Part 2: The falsehoods”.[23] https://t.co/puFZa6ErOn

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

Recapping, here in this series, I will deconstruct Shyrokykh and Kragh’s “disinformation” concept, I will contest on multiple bases the research value of their faulty investigation, as well I shall debunk the misrepresentations that the authors spread on the NGO Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights SWEDHR.

Finally in this Introduction:

Shyrokykh and Kragh argue that SWEDHR “has become an element in the international disinformation of key belligerent states in the Syrian Civil War”. And that being the reason they give why they have focused on our work. Namely, to illustrate what “black night NGOs” do and represent. And they feel the need to clarify that SWEDHR was “created in 2014 by Marcello Ferrada de Noli” –a detail that does not add neither to the theses nor to the conclusions or main purpose of their work. But, above all, they publish all this now, in December 2024, whereas the happenings referred in their article occurred nearly a decade ago, during the past Syrian war. The Asad government is gone. What is then the real reason for this attention they give nowadays to articles that I published so many years ago on a subject quasi obsolete?

Karina Shyrokykh, Ukrainian, is spokesperson of the “Nordic Ukraine forum”, [18] and she is at present collecting money in Sweden to assist Ukrainian military operations in Russia’s Kursk –in concrete to finance military equipment for the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade ‘Magura’; [19]

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

g)  In a typical Strawman fallacy [13] scheme, the authors first attribute to SWEDHR statements that are not ours, not said nor written by us, only to afterwards they artificially build up an argument to “refute” …something that in fact we have never uttered.

h)  The authors give a wrong, misleading, and in my opinion libellous description of the true academic status of the SWEDHR members and lead, in an apparent effort trying to reduce SWEDHR academic competence, and thus diminishing the expertise impact of the organization. They affirm that we at SWEDHR “claim competence in medicine” or “attempt to legitimize itself as a group of medical experts”.[14] Whereas they know well –as it appears in the signatures of our articles listed in their Reference section which they should have read –but also in the Journal of the Swedish Medical Association– that both the chair and vice chair of SWEDHR (Prof. Anders Romelsjö), are not only Doctor of Medicine graduated at the Karolinska Institute, but also both titled professor emeritus, and formerly employed at that institution. All the rest of SWEDHR members that have been signatories of professional opinions appearing in our analyses in The Indicter are medical doctors of different specialities. And one a maxillofacial surgeon.

i)  Further on their topic of SWEDHR “claimed” competence, Shyrokykh and Kragh’s surreptitiously question paediatric competence in SWEDHR [15] as to whether being able to analyse the White Helmets malpractice in infant victims. Whereas knowing (or should know, if they would have read the article they quote) that Dr. Leif Elinder, then member in SWEDHR board of directors, is a Swedish specialist in that field. He wrote in the exact same article quoted by Shyrokykh and Kragh [16]: “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”.

In sum, by trying belittling SWEDHR doctors’ actual competence in various medical fields, or down to the level of insinuating that it is all just a “claim” of medical competence, Shyrokykh and Kragh pretend discredit the validity of our findings and, above all, dispute the legitimacy of our organization. These are typical ad-hominem fallacies,[17] blatantly or veiled, which commonly reveal low academic ethics, absence of own theses’ supportive facts, or poor argumentation skills.

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

d)  The authors describe, and resent, that analyses authored by Ferrada de Noli were incorporated as documents and/or cited in the United Nations organizations “most notably during discussions in the United Nations Security Council and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)…[etc.]” and archived in the proceedings of the OPCW meetings.[10]

Nevertheless, while complaining on the above, it appears as most remarkable that Shyrokykh and Kragh, at the same time they label those analyses as “disinformation”, they do not attempt to rebut those findings (and in fact they could not). In no place in their article, they specify which of our analyses or conclusions would be wrong, and why. They do not mention or elaborate about any of the (verified) facts we referred in the studies we published, despite these are the very articles in The Indicter on which they claim to “base” their allegations on “disinformation”. Those publications (six articles) are listed in the References section of “Black knight NGOs and international disinformation”. Have they read them, or instead a priori just disregarded its contents by default?

e)  While their uttered focus is the “disinformation” impact of our NGO in the Syrian war 2015-2019,[11] in the calculation of their data they do not cluster the issues that the computed posts referred to. The truth is that not of all posts referred to the Syrian War.

f)  Empirically, the authors make their case by computing 2,370 posts [11] by @Swedhr, @The_Indicter and @professorsblogg (which the authors wrongly present as an “official” SWEDHR account) in the period 2015-2019.The truth is that, in one way or another, the output in the three X accounts (@The_Indicter, @SWDHR, @Professorsblogg), refer, and often link, to corresponding contents of articles published in The Indicter magazine.

And the facts show instead that in the period analysed by the authors (2015-2019), most articles do not correspond to the theme “Syria”, or related (such as “White Helmets”, or “gas attacks”, “OPWC”, etc.). Not at all. The main content of the articles in The Indicter 2015-2019 were instead referred to the Julian Assange human-rights case. This is the accurate material distribution in the period: [12]

Among N= 123 articles referring to the Julian Assange case, the Syria war, and the Ukraine war, the breakdown of the issues is the following: Julian Assange human rights case, n= 72 (59%); the Syria war and related, n= 47 (38%); and the Ukraine war, n=4, 3.3%.

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

Here some main flaws and fallacies in the paper by Shyrokykh and Kragh that I will comment in the analyses further in this series:

a)  A crucial fault of Shyrokykh and Kragh’s paper is that the results are deprived of statistical significance between the variables studied. In other words, it has no relevance as empirical study, and thus fail to accomplish the proposed design. The methodological flaws and biased sources are evident.

b)  Their categorization of “disinformation campaigns”, and hence its “disinformation” content, is simply and symmetrically described by them as all production that “intend to obfuscate and sow doubt about the integrity and intentions of mainstream Western journalists, state agencies, and multilateral organizations”. [5] In other words, “disinformation” would be for Shyrokykh and Kragh’s all what opposes or criticizes the narratives delivered by West government authorities, agencies and international organizations they control –and echoed by the established mainstream media. The fact that those governmental storylines may contain false narratives, or plain constructed propaganda, or not confirmed information and/or based on demonstrated biased sources, is nothing that Shyrokykh and Kragh care to analyse, or even name.

All which constitutes an invalid logical argument known since John Lock’ times: the fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam. [6]

c) One example of the authors premeditated obfuscation towards the readers in presenting our organization, is that along their text of 25 pages they change 60 times our legal acronym SWEDHR to “SDHR”! The trick is well known. If any reader would wish a verification about the stands by “SDHR” (in quotations marks) in any search site –such as Google– it will find no entries referred to our organization.[7] Instead, if Shyrokykh and Kragh would have honestly and consequently referred “SWEDHR” as the true name of our Swedish NGO, a corresponding search for “SWEDHR” (in quotations marks) in Google would give 140 entries,[8] starting with a Wikipedia article about our organization Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights.[9]

[Prof. Med dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All @ProfessorsBlogg]

Debunking @KarinaShyrokykh & @MartinKragh1 smearing peace on @SWEDHR
Read it (1st part) in @The_Indicter geopolitical magazine:
https://t.co/zYeGhivvga

In “Black knight NGOs and international disinformation”, Associate professors Karina Shyrokykh and Martin Kragh describe Swedish Professors & Doctor for Human Rights (SWEDHR) as “a small but influential NGO”, who had a “significant role –whether intentionally or not– in the international disinformation campaign surrounding key events in the Syrian Civil War”. In their words, our organization is “one of the most durable examples of online disinformation involving a black knight NGO”. “As such, the @SWEDHR case is noteworthy in itself”, write the authors.

It is not for me to comment the authors’ conclusions above concerning the notability or relevance they accredit to SWEDHR in the geopolitical debate. Nevertheless, about what they call “disinformation”, I will show here that our output has been exactly the opposite –meaning, what we authored in @The_Indicter it was analyses based in verifiable facts, ergo, true information.
Accordingly, referring the authors’ theoretical discourse developed in their article, what is instead debatable is their concept of “disinformation”, their reasoning on “legitimacy” regarding our organization, and the equivocal descriptions they misleadingly report about our academic and research capacity.
And regarding the scholarly relevance of their empirical investigation tested in that article, its results did not achieve statistical significance, ergo, no scientific value.

[adam @AdameMedia]

Can someone explain to me how dropping 500 tone b0mbs on refugee camps is reported as “targeted strikes”?

Unless civilians are the real target…