On 26 April 2023, the NRC published an article on the “disinformation think-tank” set up by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS). The think-tank was set up in 2019 to search for online disinformation about vaccination. According to VWS, the consultative body focuses on messages that can cause “damage to the public domain”. It is meant to be a consultation between the RIVM, the Healthcare and Youth Inspectorate (IGJ), VWS and representatives of major social media platforms. E-mail traffic between VWS and IGJ from February 2021 contemplated using the think-tank to block the Twitter account of a GP with a dissenting opinion on the corona vaccine. Research by NRC shows that before and during the corona crisis, the think-tank took an increasingly guiding role in the public debate. Martin Buijsen, Professor of Health Law at Erasmus School of Law, doubts the think-tank and this way of combating disinformation.
A general practitioner was concerned about using Pfizer for people between 12 and 17. So he sent an e-mail to parents in his practice. The IGJ sent him a letter a month and a half later, saying his mail could lead to “risky confusion” and damage “trust in medical care”. The GP wondered how the IGJ was getting at this, but after a brief exchange of letters, the GP was left without a satisfactory reply, while the correspondence became part of the disinformation think-tank. As of March 2020, the IGJ received 375 reports about healthcare providers not complying with regulations on giving accurate information about corona. To what extent may a doctor deviate from the guidelines? According to Buijsen, “Doctors must adhere to standards and guidelines of their profession. If not, the Inspectorate is allowed to intervene.”
Memos from the think-tank also show that VWS asked social media platforms to promote specific posts on vaccination to make harmful opinions less visible or even remove posts from the platforms. Steering by VWS to remove particular posts that were highly critical of corona policy - in which VWS played a vital role - increased during the corona crisis. NRC research also shows that the think-tank considered influencing the press by, for example, inviting a columnist or journalist or youth media like FunX or Vice. In addition, the think-tank was also not transparent, and the question arose whether all the information marked as disinformation by the think-tank was also always deliberate misinformation or just (very) critical reporting by activists or healthcare providers, such as GPs.
Buijsen expresses his concerns about the actions of VWS and the think-tank: “Deleting messages from LinkedIn and Twitter? That seems legally and ethically undesirable to me. As far as I am concerned, the line should be drawn at criminal offences. This think-tank astonishes me. What kind of society do we live in if individual doctors are no longer allowed to voice their opinions and we are no longer allowed to hear them? The government should stay far away from the concept of disinformation. Moreover, the think-tank’s work is not verifiable. A transparent government should not use such shadowy terms as disinformation.”
- Professor
- More information
Read the NRC's entire survey here (in Dutch).
