The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair.

That's patreon.com slash LawFair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull and the aftermath.

What we kind of understood was the way that these narratives, these much bigger structures

for understanding the vaccines were being used as a way to try and make people think about

the vaccines.

We actually moved the publication up because the minute that the Pfizer and Moderna

announcements came out, we saw exactly the same narratives playing out and we thought,

hang on, we've got a bit of an issue here. I think if governments are saying, how are

we going to ensure that people do have some kind of trust in these vaccines, there needs

to be an understanding of those narratives, but we also need to understand the data deficits.

So this is something I'm becoming increasingly passionate about, which is it's not just

keep telling everybody that debunking rumours, it's saying, wow, people are confused about

why Pfizer has indemnity.

If this vaccine is fine, why can't we see them if there are problems?

I'm Quintedur ethic and this is the LawFair podcast, December 10, 2020.

This week on our Arbiters of Truth Series on Disinformation, Evelyn Dwack and I spoke

with Claire Wardle, the co-founder and leader of the nonprofit organization First Draft,

and a research fellow at Harvard University's Shore and St. Centre.

First Draft recently released a report on the information environment around the development

...