When Psychology Professors Become Propagandists: Exposing the "Funhouse Mirror" of Censorship Masquerading as Science

Why a NYU professor’s Guardian op-ed recycled debunked claims with real-world harm

When Psychology Professors Become Propagandists: Exposing the "Funhouse Mirror" of Censorship Masquerading as Science

On July 13, 2025, Jay Van Bavel, a psychology professor at New York University, published an opinion piece in The Guardian that would have been merely academically irresponsible if not for its potentially defamatory implications. Under the seemingly innocuous title "Are a few people ruining the internet for the rest of us?", Van Bavel revived one of the most thoroughly debunked pieces of digital propaganda in recent history: the "Disinformation Dozen" narrative.¹

Referring to the pandemic, he wrote:

“Twelve accounts – known as the ‘disinformation dozen’ – created most of the vaccine misinformation on Facebook during the pandemic. These few hyperactive users produced enough content to create the false perceptions that many people were vaccine hesitant.”

Van Bavel didn't stop there. He branded these individuals as 'misinformation super-spreaders' who share 'fake news,' directly comparing them to disease vectors spreading contagion. This is not merely academic analysis—it's a direct accusation that these named individuals were responsible for creating 'false perceptions' about vaccines, with the clear implication that they bear responsibility for vaccine hesitancy and, by extension, COVID deaths.

This is not a minor misstep. It is a direct and defamatory invocation of a claim that has been thoroughly debunked by Meta itself, as you will see detailed later in this article. Van Bavel’s statement implies that the named individuals were not only responsible for widespread public health misinformation but also caused vaccine hesitancy and related harm—effectively linking them to deaths.

What makes this even more egregious is the role of public health officials—like U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy—who not only failed to warn the public about known vaccine risks but actively collaborated with platforms like Facebook to suppress accurate information shared by its users about vaccine injuries and deaths. At the very moment we were using those platforms to raise legitimate safety concerns, including in my 2020 article exposing the FDA’s own acknowledgement of the potential lethality of mRNA injections prior to Operation Warp Speed, those warnings were buried. (You can read more on that below.)

Context is everything—which is why the Guardian’s publication of Van Bavel’s editorial may have crossed the line from protected opinion into actionable defamation. When a credentialed academic repeats a debunked claim in a major outlet years after it has been officially refuted, it moves beyond sloppiness into reckless disregard for the truth.

This is not an isolated lapse in judgment. It reflects a broader pattern: discredited narratives, thoroughly debunked by primary sources, being laundered through academic journals and legacy media to justify censorship and defame American citizens. The implications are profound. They strike at the heart of free speech, scientific integrity, and the growing use of "misinformation" as a pretext to silence lawful dissent.

Just days ago, Tulsi Gabbard revealed that the propaganda framework used to target the “Disinformation Dozen” —according to soon-to-be-declassified Biden-era documents— transformed ordinary Americans expressing vaccine skepticism or questioning government narratives were labeled as ‘violent domestic extremists.’

For those of us named in this propaganda campaign, this isn't an abstract intellectual debate. As I've documented extensively, the past four years have brought coordinated attacks that severely impeded life's work, threatened my family's security, and created a living nightmare of surveillance, deplatforming, and reputational assassination.² When academics like Van Bavel continue to cite these discredited claims, they're not just engaging in poor scholarship—they're perpetuating real harm against real people.

And in the context of an ongoing federal lawsuit alleging reputational harm, Van Bavel’s publication of this claim could be construed as reckless disregard for the truth—a critical element in proving actual malice under U.S. defamation law.

The Original Sin: CCDH's Fabricated Crisis

The transatlantic deep state cutout Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) released its "Disinformation Dozen" report on March 24, 2021, claiming that just 12 individuals were responsible for 65% of anti-vaccine content on social media platforms.³ The report named specific American citizens, including doctors, researchers, and health advocates, painting them as public enemies responsible for vaccine hesitancy and, by extension, COVID deaths.

The methodology was laughably inadequate:

• Sample size: 483 posts over six weeks

• Sources: Just 30 Facebook groups, some with as few as 2,500 members

• Representativeness: Zero—this tiny sample was extrapolated to represent billions of social media posts

• Transparency: The CCDH failed to explain how content was classified as "anti-vax" or why specific groups were selected⁴

Meta's Devastating Rebuttal: The 1,300-Fold Error

On August 18, 2021, Meta (Facebook) delivered a crushing blow to the CCDH's credibility. In an official statement, Meta's Vice President of Content Policy, Monika Bickert, revealed that the so-called "Disinformation Dozen" were actually responsible for only 0.05% of all vaccine-related content views on Facebook—not 65%.⁵

This represents a 1,300-fold error. To put this in perspective, it's equivalent to claiming that 12 people consume 65% of all food in America when they actually consume 0.05%. It's not a rounding error or a minor miscalculation—it's either gross incompetence or deliberate fabrication.

Van Bavel's Academic Malpractice

Despite Meta's public refutation being available for nearly four years, Van Bavel's July 2025 Guardian piece uncritically repeats the debunked claim:

"Twelve accounts – known as the 'disinformation dozen' – created most of the vaccine misinformation on Facebook during the pandemic."⁶

This isn't an innocent mistake. Van Bavel is a trained researcher who has:

• Published extensively on misinformation and social media

• Received funding from Google Jigsaw and the John Templeton World Charity Foundation⁷

• Co-authored multiple papers on online discourse and social norms

The depth of his institutional support makes this failure even more inexcusable. Van Bavel has received grants from virtually every major psychology funding body in America:

• American Psychological Foundation (APF): APF Visionary grant and F.J. McGuigan Early Career Investigator Research Grant

• National Science Foundation (NSF): Multiple grants including NSF #1349089

• Russell Sage Foundation: A major funder of social science research

• Society for Personality and Social Psychology: Direct research support

• John Templeton Foundation: Known for funding research on "big questions"

• Foundation for Personality and Social Psychology: Young Scholars Award recipient

• Association for Psychological Science: Janet T. Spence Award for Transformative Early Career Contributions

• Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues: Additional support

• AE Foundation: Further backing

• New York University: Institutional support through grants and fellowships

This extensive funding network—representing millions in research dollars—comes with an implicit expectation of rigorous methodology and intellectual honesty. Van Bavel's failure to fact-check a claim central to his argument, despite having every resource at his disposal, represents not just personal failure but institutional failure, and possibly a deliberate act of black media propagandizing. How many peer reviewers, grant committees, and award panels endorsed his work while he built his career on the quicksand of discredited propaganda?

The Academic Echo Chamber: From Flawed Report to "Peer-Reviewed" Propaganda

Van Bavel's Guardian piece didn't emerge in isolation. It's part of a broader pattern where he and his colleagues have built an academic edifice on the rotten foundation of the CCDH report, or similarly fabricated pieces of propaganda passed along as factually ‘hard evidence.’

The "Funhouse Mirror" Paper (2024)

In September 2024, Van Bavel, along with Claire E. Robertson and Kareena S. del Rosario, published "Inside the funhouse mirror factory: How social media distorts perceptions of norms" in Current Opinion in Psychology.⁸ The paper's declaration of competing interests reveals funding from Google Jigsaw and the John Templeton World Charity Foundation, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest.

The paper employs sophisticated academic language to advance simplistic claims:

• Social media is dominated by "extreme outliers"

• A "small but vocal minority" distorts public perception

• These distortions lead to "false polarization" and various social harms

While some observations may hold merit, the paper’s credibility is undermined by its uncritical use of statistical framings—such as "0.1% of users shared 80% of fake news"—that echo discredited narratives like those in the CCDH report. Though not cited directly, the authors repeat its core themes about hyperactive minorities distorting discourse, without addressing public rebuttals such as Meta’s 2021 refutation of the “Disinformation Dozen,” who described the report as “faulty” and “without evidence.”

The Swiss Connection: Taxpayer-Funded Misinformation

The “disinformation dozen” fake research contamination spread internationally. At the 2022 ACM Web Science Conference, researchers from the University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland presented a paper titled "The Disinformation Dozen: An Exploratory Analysis of Covid-19 Disinformation Proliferation on Twitter."⁹

This research was funded by a Swiss National Science Foundation grant of 96,450 CHF (approximately $96,000).¹⁰Swiss taxpayers unknowingly funded research based on claims that were without evidentiary foundation, representing an astronomical 1300 fold margin of error. Despite this, the paper made it through peer review without anyone apparently checking whether its fundamental premise—the existence and influence of a "Disinformation Dozen"—was valid.

The Cascade Effect: How Academic Fraud Multiplies

Once embedded in the peer-reviewed literature, the "Disinformation Dozen" myth metastasized. At least 17 subsequent studies have cited or built upon this discredited concept, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of misinformation within academia itself. These papers span prestigious journals and conferences, each adding another layer of false legitimacy to the original lie.¹¹

Moreover, the fake report by CCDH was distributed the world over across hundreds of major news outlets, and created over 84,000 results at its new cycle peak.

This represents a catastrophic failure of the peer-review system. How did multiple reviewers, editors, and conference committees fail to perform the basic due diligence of checking whether the CCDH's claims had been refuted by the very platform they purported to analyze?

Media Complicity and Belated Corrections

The mainstream media initially amplified the CCDH's claims without scrutiny. However, some outlets have belatedly acknowledged their errors:

• The Independent added an update noting Meta's objections to the CCDH study¹²

• Forbes updated their article to reference Meta's rebuttal¹³

• McGill University added a pinned comment to their YouTube video acknowledging the dispute¹⁴

These corrections, while welcome, came years after the damage was done. Meanwhile, outlets like The Guardian continue to publish pieces like Van Bavel's that perpetuate the discredited narrative without any acknowledgment of the controversy.

The Human Cost: Four Years of Persecution

What Van Bavel dismisses as data points in his academic papers represents the systematic destruction of real lives. As I've documented in "Four Years of Lawfare and Black Ops," the impact on my family and me has been devastating:¹⁵

• Complete digital erasure: Over 2 million followers vanished overnight across all platforms

• Economic warfare: Payment processors terminated, speaking engagements canceled, income streams destroyed

• Psychological terrorism: Death threats, surveillance, coordinated harassment campaigns

• Collateral damage: Friends and colleagues severed ties out of fear of association

• Family trauma: My children witnessing their father's work vilified and our security threatened

This isn't abstract academic debate—it's the weaponization of institutions against citizens who dared to question official narratives. When Van Bavel casually cites the "Disinformation Dozen," he's perpetuating a campaign that has caused immeasurable suffering to real families. Even today, I have been forced to open up a Legal Defense Fund without which my work cannot continue, and the security of my family not be protected.

The Legal Dimension: Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Exposes the Conspiracy

The stakes here extend far beyond academic integrity. In June 2025, a landmark 171-page federal civil rights lawsuit was filed in the Middle District of Florida, charging CCDH, its CEO Imran Ahmed, and U.S. officials with a four-year campaign of defamation against a dozen U.S. citizens.¹⁶

The lawsuit reveals particularly disturbing allegations:

"Defendants created databases, compiled lists, tracked the online activities of Americans based on political viewpoints, and identified them for censorship and punishment." (¶133, Amended Complaint)

"The U.S. State Department coordinated with foreign governments and media to promote CCDH's false claims—creating reputational harm across jurisdictions." (¶17–18)

This case establishes that those targeted by these defamation campaigns suffered actual injury, opening the door to civil and potentially criminal liability for those who knowingly perpetuated false claims—including academics like Van Bavel who continue to cite the discredited "Disinformation Dozen" narrative.

Van Bavel's Dangerous Conflation: From Speech to Violence

Perhaps most alarmingly, work like Van Bavel's has been used to draw connections between protected speech and violent action. The Disinformation Project in New Zealand claimed that the "Disinformation Dozen" were responsible for peaceful protests turning violent—without any evidence that these individuals advocated for violence.¹⁷

This represents a dangerous escalation: using fabricated statistics to not just silence speech but to criminalize it by association with violence. It's a tactic worthy of authoritarian regimes, not democratic societies.

The Institutional Failure

This scandal reveals failures at every level of our knowledge-production and dessimination infrastructure:

1. Advocacy Groups: The CCDH produced propaganda disguised as research

2. Social Media Platforms: Initially acted on false information before Meta's belated correction

3. Academia: Failed to verify basic facts before accepting papers for publication

4. Peer Review: Reviewers approved studies without checking their foundational claims

5. Media: Globally amplified false narratives never corrected or retracted

6. Funding Bodies: Supported research based on discredited premises

A Warning to Academia

To Jay Van Bavel, his co-authors, and any academics tempted to build careers on the quicksand of propaganda:

You are on notice.

As the federal lawsuit makes clear, continuing to cite the "Disinformation Dozen" narrative after Meta's definitive refutation is not academic discourse—it's potential defamation with legal consequences. The complaint specifically addresses:

"There is long-standing legal precedent in both U.S. and international law that: Defamation by implication (see Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)) is actionable, particularly when reputation is harmed by innuendo or insinuation, not just false factual claims."¹⁸

Those who participate in these defamation campaigns may face:

• Civil liability for defamation and tortious interference

• Professional censure for academic misconduct

• Loss of credibility and career prospects

• Potential criminal investigation for conspiracy to violate civil rights

The defense of "I was just citing other papers" will not suffice when those papers have been publicly debunked by primary sources. Academic freedom does not include the freedom to knowingly perpetuate lies that harm others.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Academic Integrity

The solution requires action on multiple fronts:

1. Retractions: Every paper citing the discredited "Disinformation Dozen" narrative should be retracted or corrected

2. Accountability: Researchers who knowingly cited debunked claims should face professional consequences

3. Reform: Peer review must include basic fact-checking of foundational claims

4. Transparency: Funding sources and potential conflicts of interest must be prominently disclosed

5. Legal Remedies: Those defamed by these campaigns deserve their day in court—and are now getting it

Conclusion: The Real Funhouse Mirror

Van Bavel's metaphor of social media as a "funhouse mirror" is ironically apt—but not in the way he intended. The real distortion isn't from ordinary users expressing skepticism about pharmaceutical products or public health policies. It's from academics who use their credentials to launder propaganda through peer review, transforming debunked claims into "scientific consensus."

The "Disinformation Dozen" narrative represents one of the most successful disinformation campaigns of our time—not by those of us who were named, but against us. It weaponized academia, media, and technology platforms to silence American citizens exercising our First Amendment rights.

Jay Van Bavel and his colleagues have a choice: retract their papers, acknowledge their errors, and commit to genuine scholarship—or continue down a path that may lead from academic misconduct to legal liability. The funhouse mirror of their own making is about to shatter, and with our federal lawsuit now filed, they may not like what they see in the fragments.

As I stated in announcing our lawsuit:

"They thought if they erased my name, others would fall silent. They thought if they isolated me, I would disappear. They were wrong. The wall they built to contain us is cracking. And the truth is breaking through."¹⁹

The distinction between academic citation and public repetition is important—but it does not absolve responsibility. When a trained scientist echoes discredited data to the public under the authority of their credentials, the result is the same: disinformation, amplified under the guise of expertise.

How You Can Help

• Donate: You can contribute directly to my Legal Defense Fund or, if you prefer, to GreenMedInfo.com to support the resource directly. You can also send me a direct message if you would like to discuss making a special contribution.

• Become a Paying Subscriber: Support my ongoing work by subscribing on Substack.

• Upgrade to Founding Member: This higher-tier membership offers deeper engagement and more direct support.

• Share: Help this message ripple far and wide

• Pray/Activate/Send Light: Your energetic support is seen and felt. It strengthens the field.

• Share and comment on this post on X: https://x.com/sayerjigmi/status/1946009545555251466

  

---

Footnotes

1. Jay Van Bavel, "Are a few people ruining the internet for the rest of us?," The Guardian, July 13, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/jul/13/are-a-few-people-ruining-the-internet-for-the-rest-of-us. ↩

2. Sayer Ji, "Four Years of Lawfare and Black Ops," Substack, 2025, https://sayerji.substack.com/p/four-years-of-lawfare-and-black-ops. ↩

3. Center for Countering Digital Hate, "The Disinformation Dozen: Why Platforms Must Act on Twelve Leading Online Anti-Vaxxers," March 2021, https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen. ↩

4. GreenMedInfo Research Group, "Debunking the CCDH's 'Disinformation Dozen' Report: How Flawed Methodology and Misleading Claims Fuel Misinformation," GreenMedInfo, June 2, 2024, https://greenmedinfo.com/content/debunking-ccdhs-disinformation-dozen-report-how-flawed-methodology-and-mislead. ↩

5. Monika Bickert, "How We're Taking Action Against Vaccine Misinformation Superspreaders," Meta, August 18, 2021, https://about.fb.com/news/2021/08/taking-action-against-vaccine-misinformation-superspreaders/. ↩

6. Van Bavel, "Are a few people ruining the internet." ↩

7. Claire E. Robertson, Kareena S. del Rosario, and Jay J. Van Bavel, "Inside the funhouse mirror factory: How social media distorts perceptions of norms," Current Opinion in Psychology 60 (2024): 101918, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101918. ↩

8. Ibid. ↩

9. Gianluca Nogara et al., "The Disinformation Dozen: An Exploratory Analysis of Covid-19 Disinformation Proliferation on Twitter," WebSci '22: 14th ACM Web Science Conference, June 2022, https://doi.org/10.1145/3501247.3531573. ↩

10. GreenMedInfo Research Group, "From Disinformation to Publication: A Case Study in Academic Failure," GreenMedInfo, August 13, 2024, https://greenmedinfo.com/content/disinformation-publication-case-study-academic-failure1. ↩

11. Ibid. ↩

12. GreenMedInfo Research Group, "Major Victory: Media Giants Admit Errors in 'Disinformation Dozen' Coverage," GreenMedInfo, October 28, 2024, https://greenmedinfo.com/content/major-victory-media-giants-admit-errors-disinformation-dozen-coverage1. ↩

13. Ibid. ↩

14. Ibid. ↩

15. Ji, "Four Years of Lawfare and Black Ops." ↩

16. Sayer Ji, "Reputation as a Weapon: Breaking—Federal Civil Rights Suit Filed Against CCDH, U.S. Officials, and Tech Giants," Substack, June 5, 2025, https://sayerji.substack.com/p/reputation-as-a-weapon-breakingfederal. ↩

17. GreenMedInfo Research Group, "Unmasking the Real Disinformation: How Flawed Research and Media Bias Threaten Free Speech," GreenMedInfo, August 16, 2024, https://greenmedinfo.com/content/unmasking-real-disinformation-how-flawed-research-and-media-bias-threaten-free. ↩

18. Ji, "Reputation as a Weapon." ↩

19. Ibid. ↩