Dead Media spreading Mis- Dis-, Mal-information

What happens when the worm turns?

The Lede

Starting in mid-2021, Malone received criticism for propagating COVID-19 misinformation and conspiracy theories, including making "dangerous" and misleading claims about the toxicity of spike proteins generated by some COVID-19 vaccines;^{[5][34][7][35]} using interviews on mass media to popularize medication with ivermectin;^[36] and tweeting a study by others questioning vaccine safety that was later retracted.^[5]

Wikipedia, circa June 17, 2025

Ah yes. Repeatedly accused of the crime of spreading COVID-19 misinformation. What does this word “misinformation” actually mean, and how is it related to the other related terms “disinformation” and “malinformation.”

Misinformation

Per Grok 3

Query- “When did the term misinformation begin to be used?”

The term "misinformation" first appeared in English around 1590, derived from the verb "misinform" (to give false or misleading information), which dates to the 14th century. Its early use referred to incorrect or misleading information without necessarily implying intent. The Oxford English Dictionary notes a 1590 usage in a legal context, describing false statements.

By the 20th century, "misinformation" gained traction in discussions of propaganda, media, and communication, particularly post-World War II, as information warfare became a focus. Google Ngram data shows a steady rise in its usage from the 1980s onward, peaking with the internet age and concerns over digital media.

Unlike "disinformation," which implies deliberate deception and emerged later (1920s, from Russian "dezinformatsiya"), "misinformation" doesn't inherently suggest intent. Its modern prominence ties to debates over fake news and social media, especially since the 2010s.

Focusing now on public health, the term “misinformation” as commonly used by modern (dead) media and governments is highly context-dependent.

Misinformation is any information that differs (at that point in time) from the approved narrative (information) being distributed by either a country’s public health service or the World Health Organization. There are some fundamental problems with this.

• Firstly, the positions of “official” national health authorities on public health topics and policies often differ from those of the World Health Organization (WHO). Which is information, and which is misinformation?

• Second, the official positions of both national health authorities and the WHO frequently change over time. As well they should; as new data become available, those data should be interpreted and lead to changes in policy. So, are today’s propagators of misinformation still guilty when the official narrative changes to align with their former misinformation? The authorized narrative concerning the origin of SARS-CoV-2 provides multiple examples that illustrate this point.

• The third problem with this concept of “misinformation” is that if an expert or layperson succeeds in correctly interpreting emerging data and discloses that interpretation (and implications) before the WHO or national public health service does, then this will meet the criteria for “propagating misinformation.” But what happens when subsequent “official” data analyses reveal that these particular misinformation propagators were merely “ahead of their time?”

• That observation leads directly to the fourth flaw in this weaponized language of “misinformation”. As one considers this logic, it becomes clear that the term “misinformation”, when used in this context, is synonymous with scientific or medical dissent from the currently approved narrative. Scientific “misinformation” is the same as scientific dissent. Therefore, any independent scientists who question or disagree with a dominant theory or hypothesis of the moment and have the courage to disagree in public are defined by self-appointed narrative enforcers as propagating disinformation. When this logic becomes reinforced and generally accepted, the scientific method is neutralized, and the false religion and priesthood of scientism is enabled.

• Since the definition of public health “misinformation” is dependent on context, and with political party turnover, one political administration’s public health position and narrative is often replaced by a different one (witness the “MAHA Commission” report of President Trump, chaired by HHS Secretary Kennedy), then it logically follows that those who continue to defend the narrative associated with the losing political party become guilty of “propagating misinformation” when the official narrative is replaced with a new incoming administration. In the current timeframe, corporate “mainstream” “dead” media continues to attempt to defend and promote Biden/Harris/Autopen administration public health narratives, which Trump/Kennedy/MAHA narratives have officially replaced.

  Therefore, the legacy corporate “mainstream” “dead” media are, by definition, propagators of misinformation.

Disinformation

again, per Grok 3

Query- “When did the term disinformation begin to be used?”

The term "disinformation" first appeared in English in the 1920s, derived from the Russian word "dezinformatsiya," which was coined during the Soviet era to describe deliberate efforts to spread false information for strategic purposes. The Oxford English Dictionary traces its earliest English usage to 1928, in the context of Soviet propaganda tactics.

Its use grew during the Cold War, particularly from the 1950s, as intelligence agencies and governments recognized coordinated campaigns to deceive. Unlike "misinformation," which can be unintentional, "disinformation" implies deliberate intent to mislead. Google Ngram data shows increased usage from the 1980s, with a sharp rise in the 2010s due to concerns over digital propaganda, fake news, and social media manipulation.

Disinformation can be defined as misinformation deployed for political purposes. “Political purposes” is another term for propaganda, which in other contexts is also referred to as marketing. Concerning modern media (dead or otherwise), in the age of widespread (universal?) deployment of psychological warfare (PsyWar) technologies, tactics, and strategies, a case can be made that much of the “misinformation” landscape is being deployed as “disinformation”.

The legacy corporate “mainstream” “dead” media that continue to defend the partisan public health messaging and narratives held over from the Biden/Harris/Autopen administration are, by definition, propagators of “disinformation”.

Malinformation

And once again, per Grok 3:

Query- “When did the term malinformation begin to be used?”

The term "malinformation" was first coined by Hossein Derakhshan and Claire Wardle in 2017, as part of their co-authored report titled Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policymaking, commissioned by the Council of Europe. The report introduced "malinformation" to describe information that is based on fact but deliberately taken out of context or manipulated to mislead, harm, or manipulate, such as revenge porn or selectively leaked emails. Unlike "misinformation" (unintentional false information) and "disinformation" (deliberately false information), "malinformation" emphasizes the malicious use of truthful information.

While the concept gained traction in academic and policy discussions around "information disorder" post-2017, its usage surged in the early 2020s, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, as researchers and organizations like the World Health Organization addressed the "infodemic" of harmful information. Google Ngram data shows no significant use of "malinformation" before 2017, confirming its recent emergence.

In the context of US public health and censorship policy, “Malinformation” is considered any information, which can be either true or false, that causes the public to become distrustful of current governmental policies, including public health policies.

The legacy corporate “mainstream” “dead” media that continue to attack the public health messaging and narratives promoted by the Trump/Kennedy administration are, by definition, propagators of “malinformation”.

What have been the official consequences for propagating mis- dis- or mal-information?

Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland (still an official DHS web page)

The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors.…The primary terrorism-related threat to the United States continues to stem from lone offenders or small cells of individuals who are motivated by a range of foreign and/or domestic grievances often cultivated through the consumption of certain online content.

(1) the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions;

Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include:

1. The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions:

   • For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021.

2. As COVID-19 restrictions continue to decrease nationwide, increased access to commercial and government facilities and the rising number of mass gatherings could provide increased opportunities for individuals looking to commit acts of violence to do so, often with little or no warning. Meanwhile, COVID-19 mitigation measures—particularly COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates—have been used by domestic violent extremists to justify violence since 2020 and could continue to inspire these extremists to target government, healthcare, and academic institutions that they associate with those measures.

Back in 2022, this bulletin had some of my colleagues (including myself) - very worried. Those who are writing and speaking about science and health policy became in danger of being targeted by the US Government as domestic terrorists for spreading “mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM)”.

AND, IN FACT, THEY WERE TARGETED BY DHS AND FBI. This was not a “conspiracy theory.”

In 2025, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard took significant steps to declassify and release documents related to the Biden administration's classified domestic surveillance and censorship strategy. This action followed a formal request from America First Legal (AFL), an advocacy group urging for transparency regarding the alleged weaponization of federal national security authorities against American citizens during the Biden administration.

On April 16, 2025, Gabbard fulfilled her commitment by declassifying the Biden administration's "Strategic Implementation Plan" (SIP), a 15-page document detailing the administration's findings and action plan to counter an alleged increase in homegrown domestic terrorism. The SIP was part of the broader "National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism" introduced in 2021, which critics argued was used to target political opponents and dissenting voices.

The declassified documents revealed that the Biden administration had coordinated with foreign governments, including the United Kingdom, to monitor and censor Americans. It also outlined plans to label opponents of public health measures, such as those related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as "Domestic Violent Extremists" (DVEs). This designation allowed federal agencies like the FBI and DHS to open assessments of individuals based on "concerning non-criminal behavior," raising concerns about potential violations of civil liberties.

Gabbard's decision to declassify these documents was praised by conservative groups and lawmakers, who saw it as a step toward restoring transparency and accountability in the intelligence community. She emphasized that the Biden-era domestic terrorism policy was an abuse of power and signaled its termination, reinforcing the Trump administration's commitment to protecting constitutional rights.

Overall, the declassification of these documents marked a significant shift in how intelligence community secrets were handled, exposing the extent of the Biden administration's domestic surveillance and censorship efforts and highlighting the need for reform and oversight.

The manipulative linking of election violence to COVID-19 policies is disingenuous. It is a calculated strategy to allow government authorities to crack down on those people who are going against the Health and Human Services narrative that there are no early treatments for COVID-19 and that everyone must get vaccinated, and that the lockdowns and mask mandates were necessary. The US Government must be held accountable for their failed policies and authoritarian behavior during this pandemic.

Scientists, the press, physicians, and yes, laypeople must be able to speak and write freely. In this day and age, that means using the Internet. There is no one right answer for everyone when it comes to healthcare treatments and the choice to take a vaccine. As a people, we can not allow ourselves to be censored in this manner.

Concluding Punchline

This accusation of “propagating COVID-19 misinformation “ is not benign. It is defamatory and is specifically intended to be defamatory. Corporate/mainstream/Dead media have deployed it as a weapon to delegitimize, defame, and silence critics of COVIDcrisis policies and data interpretations who were not aligned with the approved narratives of the time. It was explicitly linked by the Biden/Harris/Autopen administration to the crime of domestic terrorism.

However, a new President has been elected, and official public policies have since changed. Yet the Corporate/mainstream/Dead media, acting in amazing coordination and messaging harmonization, are all in opposition to these new official policies while being aligned with pharmaceutical industry interests. Now it is corporate media that is opposing official public health narratives and policies, doing so in an overtly aggressive, partisan manner, and actively seeking to delegitimize and cast doubt on the administration and policies of President Trump and Secretary Kennedy.

The irony will not be lost on any who have followed this essay that Corporate/mainstream/Dead media, their pharmaceutical industry clients, and their agents formerly known as reporters and essayists, are the ones that are currently explicitly and intentionally spreading mis- dis- and mal-information. And that, under the Biden/Harris/Autopen administration, this would have constituted domestic terrorism. Perhaps the greatest irony is that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has also been repeatedly attacked, denigrated, and wickedly delegitimized by these same Corporate/mainstream/Dead media, is the one now protecting these organizations such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic Monthly and many others from being labeled as domestic terrorist organization for the thought and speech crime of propagating both COVID-19 misinformation as well as a wide range of other public health-related mis- dis- and malinformation.

---