From HandWiki
Short description: Person's choice to deny psychologically uncomfortable truth
Banner at 2017 Climate March in Washington D.C.

In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.[1] Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.[2]

In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of ideas that are radical, controversial, or fabricated.[3] The terms Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism describe the denial of the facts and the reality of the subject matters,[4] and the term climate change denial describes denial of the scientific consensus that the climate change of planet Earth is a real and occurring event primarily caused in geologically recent times by human activity.[5] The forms of denialism present the common feature of the person rejecting overwhelming evidence and trying to generate political controversy in attempts to deny the existence of consensus.[6][7]

The motivations and causes of denialism include religion, self-interest (economic, political, or financial), and defence mechanisms meant to protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas; such disturbance is called cognitive dissonance in psychology terms.[8][9]

Definition and tactics

Anthropologist Didier Fassin distinguishes between denial, defined as "the empirical observation that reality and truth are being denied", and denialism, which he defines as "an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth".[10] Persons and social groups who reject propositions on which there exists a mainstream and scientific consensus engage in denialism when they use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument and legitimate debate, when there is none.[6][7][11] It is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy:[6][12]

  1. Conspiracy theories – Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in "a conspiracy to suppress the truth".
  2. Cherry picking – Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers to make their opponents look as though they base their ideas on weak research. Diethelm and McKee (2009) note, "Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as an indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness."[6]
  3. False experts – Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility. This goes hand-in-hand with the marginalization of real experts and researchers.[6]
  4. Moving the goalposts – Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence (aka Shifting baseline)
  5. Other logical fallacies – Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.

Common tactics to different types of denialism include misrepresenting evidence, false equivalence, half-truths, and outright fabrication.[13][14][15] South African judge Edwin Cameron notes that a common tactic used by denialists is to "make great play of the inescapable indeterminacy of figures and statistics".[15] Historian Taner Akçam states that denialism is commonly believed to be negation of facts, but in fact "it is in that nebulous territory between facts and truth where such denialism germinates. Denialism marshals its own facts and it has its own truth."[16]

Focusing on the rhetorical tactics through which denialism is achieved in language, in Alex Gillespie (2020)[17] of the London School of Economics has reviewed the linguistic and practical defensive tactics for denying disruptive information. These tactics are conceptualized in terms of three layers of defence:

  1. Avoiding – The first line of defence against disruptive information is to avoid it.
  2. Delegitimizing – The second line of defence is to attack the messenger, by undermining the credibility of the source.
  3. Limiting – The final line of defence, if disruptive information cannot be avoided or delegitimized, is to rationalize and limit the impact of the disruptive ideas.

In 2009 author Michael Specter defined group denialism as "when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie".[18]

Prescriptive and polemic perspectives

If one party to a debate accuses the other of denialism they are framing the debate. This is because an accusation of denialism is both prescriptive and polemic: prescriptive because it carries implications that there is truth to the denied claim; polemic since the accuser implies that continued denial in the light of presented evidence raises questions about the other's motives.[10] Edward Skidelsky, a lecturer in philosophy at Exeter University writes that "An accusation of 'denial' is serious, suggesting either deliberate dishonesty or self-deception. The thing being denied is, by implication, so obviously true that the denier must be driven by perversity, malice or wilful blindness." He suggests that, by the introduction of the word denier into further areas of historical and scientific debate, "One of the great achievements of The Enlightenment – the liberation of historical and scientific enquiry from dogma – is quietly being reversed".[19]

Some people have suggested that because denial of the Holocaust is well known, advocates who use the term denialist in other areas of debate may intentionally or unintentionally imply that their opponents are little better than Holocaust deniers.[20][21] However, Robert Gallo et al. defended this latter comparison, stating that AIDS denialism is similar to Holocaust denial since it is a form of pseudoscience that "contradicts an immense body of research".[22]

Politics and science

Climate change


AIDS denialism is the denial that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).[23] AIDS denialism has been described as being "among the most vocal anti-science denial movements".[24] Some denialists reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that the virus exists but say that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS. Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to some combination of recreational drug use, malnutrition, poor sanitation, and side effects of antiretroviral medication, rather than infection with HIV. However, the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive[25][26] and the scientific community rejects and ignores AIDS-denialist claims as based on faulty reasoning, cherry picking, and misrepresentation of mainly outdated scientific data.[lower-alpha 1] With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is now spread mainly through the Internet.[27]

Thabo Mbeki, former president of South Africa, embraced AIDS denialism, proclaiming that AIDS was primarily caused by poverty. About 365,000 people died from AIDS during his presidency; it is estimated that around 343,000 premature deaths could have been prevented if proper treatment had been available.[28][29]


Main page: Social:COVID-19 misinformation
"COVID is a lie" graffiti in Pontefract, West Yorkshire, England

The term "COVID-19 denialism" or merely "COVID denialism" refers to the thinking of those who deny the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic,[30][31] at least to the extent of denying the scientifically recognized COVID mortality data of the World Health Organization. The claims that the COVID-19 pandemic has been faked, exaggerated, or mischaracterized are pseudoscience.[32] Some famous people who have engaged in COVID-19 denialism include Elon Musk,[33] former U.S. President Donald Trump,[34][35] and former Brazilian President Bolsonaro.[36]


Main page: Unsolved:Rejection of evolution by religious groups

Religious beliefs may prompt an individual to deny the validity of the scientific theory of evolution. Evolution is considered an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal, yet this view is often met with opposition by biblical literalists.[37][38][39][40][41] The alternative view is often presented as a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis's creation myth. Many fundamentalist Christians teach creationism as if it were fact under the banners of creation science and intelligent design. Beliefs that typically coincide with creationism include the belief in the global flood myth, geocentrism, and the belief that the Earth is only 6,000–10,000 years old.[42] These beliefs are viewed as pseudoscience in the scientific community and are widely regarded as erroneous.[43]

Flat Earth

Main pages: Astronomy:Flat Earth and Unsolved:Modern flat Earth beliefs

The superseded belief that the Earth is flat, and denial of all of the overwhelming evidence that supports an approximately spherical Earth that rotates around its axis and orbits the Sun, persists into the 21st century. Modern proponents of flat-Earth cosmology (or flat-Earthers) refuse to accept any kind of contrary evidence, dismissing all spaceflights and images from space as hoaxes and accusing all organizations and even private citizens of conspiring to "hide the truth". They also claim that no actual satellites are orbiting the Earth, that the International Space Station is fake, and that these are lies from all governments involved in this grand cover-up. Some even believe other planets and stars are hoaxes.

Adherents of the modern flat-earth model propose that a dome-shaped firmament encloses a disk-shaped Earth. They may also claim, after Samuel Rowbotham, that the Sun is only 3,000 miles (4,800 km) above the Earth and that the Moon and the Sun orbit above the Earth rather than around it. Modern flat-earthers believe that Antarctica is not a continent but a massive ice floe, with a wall 150 feet (46 m) or higher, which circles the perimeter of the Earth and keeps everything (including all the oceans' water) from falling off the edge.

Flat-Earthers also assert that no one is allowed to fly over or explore Antarctica, despite contrary evidence. According to them, all photos and videos of ships sinking under the horizon and of the bottoms of city skylines and clouds below the horizon, revealing the curvature of the Earth, have been manipulated, computer-generated, or somehow faked. Therefore, regardless of any scientific or empirical evidence provided, flat-Earthers conclude that it is fabricated or altered in some way.

When linked to other observed phenomena such as gravity, sunsets, tides, eclipses, distances and other measurements that challenge the flat earth model, claimants replace commonly-accepted explanations with piecemeal models that distort or over-simplify how perspective, mass, buoyancy, light or other physical systems work.[44] These piecemeal replacements rarely conform with each other, finally leaving many flat-Earth claimants to agree that such phenomena remain "mysteries" and more investigation is to be done. In this conclusion, adherents remain open to all explanations except the commonly accepted globular Earth model, shifting the debate from ignorance to denialism.[45]

Genetically modified foods

Main page: Philosophy:Genetically modified food controversies
See also: GMO conspiracy theories

There is a scientific consensus[46][47][48][49] that currently available food derived from genetically modified crops (GM) poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[50][51][52][53][54] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[55][56][57] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[58][59][60][61] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[62][63][64][65]

Psychological analyses indicate that over 70% of GM food opponents in the US are "absolute" in their opposition, experience disgust at the thought of eating GM foods, and are "evidence insensitive".[66]


Statin denialism is a rejection of the medical worth of statins, a class of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Cardiologist Steven Nissen at Cleveland Clinic has commented "We are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of our patients to Web sites..."[67] promoting unproven medical therapies. Harriet Hall sees a spectrum of "statin denialism" ranging from pseudoscientific claims to the understatement of benefits and overstatement of side effects, all of which is contrary to the scientific evidence.[68]

Mental illness denial

Main page: Unsolved:Mental illness denial

Mental illness denial or mental disorder denial is where a person denies the existence of mental disorders.[69] Both serious analysts,[70][71] as well as pseudoscientific movements[69] question the existence of certain disorders. A minority of professional researchers see disorders such as depression from a sociocultural perspective and argue that the solution to it is fixing a dysfunction in society, not in the person's brain.[71] Some people may also deny that they have a mental illness after being diagnosed, certain analysts argue this denialism is usually fueled by narcissistic injury.[72] Anti-psychiatry movements such as Scientology promote mental illness denial by having alternative practices to psychiatry.[69]

Election denial

Election denial is false dismissal of the outcome of a fair election. Stacey Abrams denied the 2018 election for governor in Georgia was "a free and fair election" and spent $22 million in "largely unsuccessful" litigation.[73] In the United States during 2022, there is an ongoing stolen election conspiracy theory about the 2020 presidential election.


Main page: Unsolved:Historical negationism

Historical negationism, the denialism of widely accepted historical fact, is a major concern among historians and is often used to falsify[74][75] or distort accepted historical events. In attempting to revise the past, negationists are distinguished by the use of techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents, attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite, manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view, and deliberately mistranslating texts.[76]

Some countries, such as Germany, have criminalized the negationist revision of certain historical events, while others take a more cautious position for various reasons, such as protection of free speech. Others mandate negationist views, such as California, where schoolchildren have been explicitly prevented from learning about the California genocide.[77][78]

Armenian genocide denialism

Holocaust denialism

Main page: Unsolved:Holocaust denial

Holocaust denial refers to denial of the murder of 5 to 6 million Jews by the Nazis in Europe during World War 2. In this context, the term is a subset of the more accurate genocide denial, which is a form of politically motivated denialism.[79][80]

Nakba denialism

Nakba denial refers to attempts to downgrade, deny and misdescribe the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during the Nakba,[81] in which four-fifths of all Palestinians were driven off their lands and into exile.[82]

Srebrenica massacre denialism

Sonja Biserko, president of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, and Edina Bečirević, the Faculty of Criminalistics, Criminology and Security Studies of the University of Sarajevo have pointed to a culture of denial of the Srebrenica massacre in Serbian society, taking many forms and present in particular in political discourse, the media, the law and the educational system.[83]

See also


  1. To support their ideas, some AIDS denialists have also misappropriated a scientific review in Nature Medicine which opens with this reasonable statement: "Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still debated" (Borowski 2006).


  1. Maslin 2009.
  2. O'Shea 2008, p. 20.
  3. Scudellari 2010.
  4. Usages of Holocaust and AIDS denialism: Kim 2007; Cohen 2007; Smith & Novella 2007, p. e256; Watson 2006, p. 6; Nature Medicine's editor 2006, p. 369
  5. Usages of global-warming denialism: Kennedy 2007, p. 425 Colquhoun 2009, p. b3658; Connelly 2007; Goodman 2007.
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Diethelm, Pascal; McKee, Martin (January 1, 2009), "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?", European Journal of Public Health 19 (1): 2–4, doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139, PMID 19158101 
  7. 7.0 7.1 McKee, Martin; Diethelm, Pascal (December 14, 2010), "How the growth of denialism undermines public health", BMJ 341: 1309–1311, doi:10.1136/bmj.c6950, PMID 21156741, 
  8. Hambling 2009.
  9. Monbiot 2006.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Fassin, Didier (2007). When Bodies Remember: Experiences and Politics of AIDS in South Africa. University of California Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0520940451. 
  11. Kalichman 2009.
  12. Mark Hoofnagle (March 11, 2009). "Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them". The Guardian. 
  13. MacDonald, David B. (2008) (in en). Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide: The Holocaust and Historical Representation. Routledge. p. 133. ISBN 978-1134085729. ; Bloxham, Donald (2005) (in en). The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. Oxford University Press. p. 208. ISBN 978-0199226887. 
  14. Richard J. Evans. "6. General Conclusion". David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition. Paragraphs 6.20, 6.21. "Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly. They do not present, as genuine, documents which they know to be forged just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious, but implausible, and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents, because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments, if this is the case, or, indeed, abandon them altogether. They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources, which, in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability, or otherwise, simply because they want, for whatever reason, to maximize the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures, as impartially as possible, in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others. They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages in order to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not willfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events, for which there is no historical evidence, in order to make their arguments more plausible." 
  15. 15.0 15.1 The dead hand of denialism Edwin Cameron. Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg), April 17, 2003.
  16. Akçam, Taner (2018) (in en). Killing Orders: Talat Pasha's Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 2. ISBN 978-3319697871. 
  17. Gillespie, Alex (2020). "Disruption, Self-Presentation, and Defensive Tactics at the Threshold of Learning". Review of General Psychology 24 (4): 382–396. doi:10.1177/1089268020914258. 
  18. Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives. 2009. ISBN 978-1594202308.,+often+struggling+with+the+trauma+of+change,+turns+away+from+reality+in+favor+of+a+more+comfortable+lie.%E2%80%9D&pg=PT7. Retrieved March 19, 2016. 
  19. Skidelsky, Edward (January 27, 2010). "Words that think for us: The tyranny of denial". Prospect. 
  20. James 2009.
  21. Farber 2006.
  22. Gallo et al. 2006.
  23. "AIDS denialism and public health practice". AIDS Behav 14 (2): 237–47. April 2010. doi:10.1007/s10461-009-9654-7. PMID 20058063. 
  24. ""There is no Proof that HIV Causes AIDS": AIDS Denialism Beliefs among People Living with HIV/AIDS". J Behav Med 33 (6): 432–440. June 2010. doi:10.1007/s10865-010-9275-7. PMID 20571892. 
  25. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee for the Oversight of AIDS Activities (1988). Confronting AIDS: Update 1988. Institute of Medicine of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.17226/771. ISBN 978-0309038799. "…the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive." 
  26. "The Evidence that HIV Causes AIDS". National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. January 14, 2010. 
  27. Steinberg, J (June 17, 2009). "AIDS denial: A lethal delusion". New Scientist 2713. Retrieved 2009-10-14. 
  28. "Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa". Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 49 (4): 410–415. October 2008. doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e31818a6cd5. PMID 19186354. 
  29. Nattrass N (February 2008). "Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa". African Affairs 107 (427): 157–176. doi:10.1093/afraf/adm087. 
  30. Friedman, Uri (2020). "The Coronavirus-Denial Movement Now Has a Leader" (in en-US). The Atlantic. 
  31. Phillips, Tom (2020). "Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro says coronavirus crisis is a media trick" (in en-GB). The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. 
  32. Phillips, Tom; Briso, Caio Barretto (2020). "Bolsonaro's anti-science response to coronavirus appals Brazil's governors" (in en-GB). The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. 
  33. Walsh, Joe. "Elon Musk's False Covid Predictions: A Timeline" (in en). 
  34. "Don't Be Shocked Trump Lied About COVID On Tape. Be Horrified That It Won't Matter" (in en). 
  35. "Six months of Trump's Covid denials: 'It'll go away … It's fading'" (in en). July 29, 2020. 
  36. "Bolsonaro's most controversial coronavirus quotes" (in en). June 19, 2021. 
  37. Myers 2006.
  38. NSTA 2007.
  39. IAP 2006.
  40. AAAS 2006.
  41. Pinholster 2006.
  42. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (Supreme Court of the United States). , cited by Numbers 2006, p. 272 as "[on]ne of the most precise explications of creation science"
  43. "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations". National Center for Science Education. 
  44. Wade, Lizzy (January 27, 2016). "In Defense of Flat Earthers". 
  45. Pierre, Joe (February 19, 2017). "Flat Earthers: Belief, Skepticism, and Denialism". 
  46. Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 34 (1): 77–88. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 24041244. "We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

    The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.".
  47. "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. "Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants – mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape – without any observed adverse effects (ICSU)." 
  48. Ronald, Pamela (May 1, 2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics 188 (1): 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMID 21546547. ""There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010)."". 
  49. But see also:

    Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants". Environment International 37 (4): 734–742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423. "In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.". 

    Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment". Science, Technology, & Human Values 40 (6): 883–914. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. "I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.". 

    And contrast:

    Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 37 (2): 213–217. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN 0738-8551. PMID 26767435. "Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

    The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.".


    Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 96 (4): 1851–1855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836. Bibcode2016JSFA...96.1851Y. "It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

    Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.".
  50. "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods". American Association for the Advancement of Science. October 20, 2012. ""The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."" 

    Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 
  51. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research (2010). A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union.. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-9279163449. Retrieved August 30, 2019. 
  52. "AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods". American Medical Association. January 2001. "REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods". American Medical Association. 2012. "Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature." 
  53. "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. June 30, 2015. ""Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs."" 
  54. National Academies Of Sciences, Engineering; Division on Earth Life Studies; Board on Agriculture Natural Resources; Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience Future Prospects (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). p. 149. doi:10.17226/23395. ISBN 978-0309437387. Retrieved August 30, 2019. ""Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts."" 
  55. "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

    GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods."
  56. Haslberger, Alexander G. (2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology 21 (7): 739–741. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088. "These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.". 
  57. Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle:

    "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement". British Medical Association. March 2004. "In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

    When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

    The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit."
  58. Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (January 29, 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. "The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points." 
  59. Marris, Claire (2001). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths". EMBO Reports 2 (7): 545–548. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMID 11463731. 
  60. Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe". Commission of European Communities. 
  61. Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States". Perspectives on Psychological Science 11 (3): 315–324. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243. 
  62. "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. 
  63. Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). "FDA and Regulation of GMOs". American Bar Association. 
  64. Sifferlin, Alexandra (October 3, 2015). "Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs". Time. Retrieved August 30, 2019. 
  65. Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David (April 5, 2001). "The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics". Council on Foreign Relations. 
  66. Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States". Perspectives on Psychological Science 11 (3): 315–324. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243. 
  67. Husten, Larry (July 24, 2017). "Nissen Calls Statin Denialism A Deadly Internet-Driven Cult". CardioBrief. 
  68. Hall, Harriet (2017). "Statin Denialism". Skeptical Inquirer 41 (3): 40–43. Retrieved October 6, 2018. 
  69. 69.0 69.1 69.2 Novella, Steven (January 24, 2018). "Mental Illness Denial". 
  70. "'Depression' Is a Symptom, Not a Disorder" (in en). 
  71. 71.0 71.1 Escalante, Alison. "Researchers Doubt That Certain Mental Disorders Are Disorders At All" (in en). 
  72. Saks, Elyn R. "Some thoughts on denial of mental illness." American Journal of Psychiatry 166.9 (2009): 972–973. Web. December 11, 2021
  73. "An ethics watchdog criticized Stacey Abrams. His boss retracted it." (in en). The New York Times. 3 November 2022. "$22 million on a largely unsuccessful voting rights lawsuit [...] In 2018, Ms. Abrams lost a close campaign for governor to Brian Kemp and refused to concede" 
  74. Watts, Philip (2009). "Rewriting history: Céline and Kurt Vonnegut" (in en). Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-five. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4381-2874-0. 
  75. Pohl, Dieter (2020). "Holocaust Studies in Our Societies". S:I.M.O.N. Shoah: Intervention. Methods. Documentation. 7 (1): 133–141. ISSN 2408-9192. "In addition, Holocaust research can support the fight against the falsification of history, not only Nazi negationism, but also lighter forms of historical propaganda.". 
  76. Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, by Richard J. Evans, 2001, ISBN:0-465-02153-0. p. 145. The author is a professor of Modern History, at the University of Cambridge, and was a major expert-witness in the Irving v. Lipstadt trial; the book presents his perspective of the trial, and the expert-witness report, including his research about the Dresden death count.
  77. Trafzer, Clifford E.; Lorimer, Michelle (5 August 2013). "Silencing California Indian Genocide in Social Studies Texts". American Behavioral Scientist 58 (1): 64–82. doi:10.1177/0002764213495032. 
  78. Fenelon, James V.; Trafzer, Clifford E. (4 December 2013). "From Colonialism to Denial of California Genocide to Misrepresentations: Special Issue on Indigenous Struggles in the Americas". American Behavioral Scientist 58 (1): 3–29. doi:10.1177/0002764213495045. 
  79. See, e.g., Strakosch, Elizabeth (2005). "The Political Methodology of Genocide Denial". Dialogue 3 (3): 1–23. Retrieved 2007-08-17. 
  80. Paul O'Shea, A Cross Too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917–1943, Rosenberg Publishing, 2008. ISBN:1877058718. p. 20.
  81. Shupak, Greg (2022). "Erasing The Nakba, Upholding Apartheid". Current Issues in Depth (8). 
  82. Pappe, Ilan (September 1, 2007). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. 
  83. Denial of genocide – on the possibility of normalising relations in the region by Sonja Biserko (the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia) and Edina Bečirević (Faculty of Criminalistics, Criminology and Security Studies of the University of Sarajevo).

Works cited

Further reading



External links