OK, now you just seem to be arguing for argument's sake, like talking about "manipulation" which is something you're introduced and I have never suggested. I don't see continuing that line of discussion as fruitful. I'm particularly persuaded by watching you deliberately goad Dave in another topic that "You're not here for the hunting" as the old joke has it.
Let us be clear, the point here is not intellectual self stimulation, or to mock the 'crazy people', or to feel sorry for them, it's to devise some practical responses to mitigate the blight of 5G conspiracy theories. Lest we forget, the 5G conspiracies have already led to direct and indirect harm to people, even as extreme as highly violent assaults and arson.
My argument, as far as debunking this is concerned, which I will restate is:
To regard this problem, of people who have become embroiled in 5G conspiracy theories, as one where merely providing people with the facts is an adequate solution would be wrong.
The problem is not one of lacking access to facts, nor of not being able to properly process those facts. The problem is the result of a particular emotional response having been invoked in these people - one that is likely to have led to the creation of a self-supporting belief system. We're not dealing with simple lack of understanding, but something more akin to a religion or a cult.
Any attempt at countering this problem has to be viewed in that light. Simple presentation of the facts will fail, one
has to take into mind the mindset of the people you are trying to convey the facts to. That mindset includes the emotional reasons why they want to believe this stuff - without understanding that you are likely to fall at the first hurdle.
Yes, there will be people to whom 5G, biology and other technology is 'magic' (cf Arthur C Clarke) but don't confuse ignorance with stupidity. (And for safety's sake: Don't confuse knowledge with wisdom.
![Smiley :)](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
) The idea that 5G can spread a viral disease is arrant nonsense, but to express it that way with a "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" to the people we'd like to dissuade from that idea would be, to put it mildly, counterproductive.
Before one can set about formulating a strategy for debunking this one has to answer several questions:
- What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
- Why does this group of people believe this?
- What makes them want to believe it?
- What is being done to make them believe this?
with a side-order of
- What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?
There's a completely different track to be followed as regards "shutting down" the likes of Anthony Steele, who seems to be a candidate for incarceration rather than persuasion of the error of his ways.