How Do You Know It's Not Confirmation Bias?
Overcoming bias requires a willingness to be wrong about a belief. If it feels unsafe to be wrong, we may look for reasons to support what we believe.
It’s hard to avoid bias. Our minds and bodies are meaning-making machines.
The question, “How do you know it's not confirmation bias?” can feel invalidating. For me, it assumes I haven't already considered my own fallibility or done the work to examine multiple points of view. But I try pull in the reins and use this question to take a second look at what I believe.
Overcoming bias requires a willingness to be wrong about a belief. If it feels unsafe to be wrong, we may look for reasons to support what we believe.
Confirmation bias is a problem because it can keep us stuck in unhelpful patterns. We may lose our ability to consciously adapt and change. We become a prisoner of our own limited beliefs.
What is Confirmation Bias?
According to Brittanica:
“people’s tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs.”
For example:
Rose dislikes the mayor and finds gratification in reading the negative articles printed in the Daily Gazette.
Dalton thinks band students are weird. He prefers hanging out with his fellow orchestra students.
In these examples, Rose confirms her beliefs against a single news authority and Dalton never really gets to know any band students, so he stereotypes them.
Confirmation bias happens subconsciously so it’s harder to detect. Being aware that it happens to everyone (one’s self included) is an important first step to overcoming it.
Very Well Mind provides the following signs of confirmation bias:
Only seeking out information that confirms your beliefs and ignoring or discredit information that doesn't support them.
Looking for evidence that confirms what you already think is true, rather than considering all of the evidence available.
Relying on stereotypes or personal biases when assessing information.
Selectively remembering information that supports your views while forgetting or discounting information that doesn't.
Having a strong emotional reaction to information (positive or negative) that confirms your beliefs, while remaining relatively unaffected by information that doesn't.
It stands to reason that we can counter some of these biases by:
Seeking out and considering information from an opposing point of view with the intention to understand.
Considering your own motives—are you looking for validation?
Seeking information & feedback from sources who don’t stand to gain or lose from giving you an honest answer.
We can’t help memory sometimes, but journaling immediately following a life event can help.
Using more than one sense to gather information—not just emotion or intellect or intuition. This can include incorporating spiritual senses, too, through prayer and mindfulness.
More than just confirmation bias, there are all kinds of biases that can influence how we think.
I’m just as human as anyone. I have experienced these biases myself. I am making changes in my life to take more personal responsibility for my own beliefs and actions. So, as much as I can, I try to let the discomfort of being questioned turn me toward seeking truth—even if it’s different from what I currently believe.
I’m learning to appreciate opposition and opposing views as beneficial.
Checking my biases and suspending my disbeliefs is what has led me to make some of the lifestyle and health choices I am currently making.
I Wasn’t Looking for It
A key element of confirmation bias is seeking out information that confirms something that you already believe.
Although I now believe I have suffered injury from the COVID-19 vaccine, I didn’t reach this conclusion on confirmation bias. It wasn’t something that had even occurred to me until a few months ago, even though I had already been studying about virology for several months. And I didn’t begin studying for any personal reason other than it caught my attention.
In April of last year, I was a germ-theory believer like everyone else. True, I felt very wrong about the way things were handled during the pandemic, largely because of the fear propaganda. And I didn’t want to get vaccinated. I attributed some of that to my dislike of needles. But I understood it was considered the socially responsible thing to do. Clearly, it’s selfish to put other peoples’ lives at risk above a little personal discomfort. The social pressure and fear-charged atmosphere were pervasive. Plus church leaders, who I believe are called of God, were recommending that we do everything possible to halt the spread of disease.
So, against my intuition, I wore the masks, took the vaccine, and kept quiet except for a few disgruntled remarks to my family. I followed the rules like a good girl. I was grateful when things got back to “normal” and I could move on with life.
You might call it a coincidence, but I believe it as an answer to prayer. A former coach and mentor had started publishing podcasts. She came across the “no virus” community before me, and without me even realizing she had already (in 2021) interviewed one of the doctors who dissented from germ theory during COVID—Dr. Andy Kaufman. But in April of 2024 she did another interview—this time with Dr. Tom Cowan. And this one was slightly more direct.
I had no pre-existing concept of viruses not existing. The explanations Dr. Cowan presented in the interview weren’t the most compelling or coherent to me. But I spontaneously—both physically and spiritually—felt that the “viruses don’t exist” revelation was important information. I had no idea why at the time. But it lit a fire in me.
I knew this was not a mainstream belief. In fact, I knew I could be shunned, ignored, or mocked.
I started methodically looking at everything I could find on both sides of the issue—CDC, NIH, Google images of viruses. I listened to more of Dr. Cowan’s story. I watched clips of a popular YouTuber who is also an ASU professor explaining “virus science” in little blurbs. I even watched an entire panel from this man and some of his colleagues—talking about the potential of virus studies and the importance of ethics in science. I came across Dr. Sam Bailey’s website. And eventually I found others of the “no virus” community.
Between the two groups, the position that felt closest to the truth on all levels—rationally, intuitively, spiritually—was the “no virus” camp. Their perspectives were like a breath of fresh air. I felt a weight of mistrust and invalidation lifted from me. For the first time in my life I felt like I had found doctors who hadn’t lost the spirit of curiosity, independent thinking, and care for humanity (as opposed to “care” for pushing patients through a system).
I still continue to seek out opposing viewpoints. But after the first five months of studies, I allowed myself to settle on the decision that made the most sense to me. I have not seen anything to convince me to believe that viruses exist. Some of this truth comes from my own body, some from just logic and reasoning, some from research.
To the degree that I have sought and acted on truth, I have found answers to my health questions.
And after five months of investigation, after I had made the choice to believe my original intuition, I received additional insight. A pattern that I had overlooked suddenly became clear.
The COVID vaccine drew a dividing line between the slight disability I had experienced from 2017 to 2021 to the steadily increasing disability and numbness I felt from 2021 onward.
I Don’t Need Anyone to Agree With Me
I’ve reached the point where I don’t need anyone to agree with me in order to feel like I’ve received the answers I have been seeking about my current health situation. And now that I have more pieces of the puzzle and more tools (including detox protocols), I feel more confident about my ability to fully regain ability.
Missing any of these puzzle pieces would have kept me trapped. I needed all of the things I have learned over the last eight years and more.
I do fight confirmation bias, which tends to creep in for all of us. So, in a sense, it’s a blessing to have people with opposing viewpoints against which to check myself and my thinking. And against which to speak what I believe. Because explaining something aloud is much different from just writing about it.
Other Experiences of COVID Vaccine Injuries
Turning from my story—there are others whose voices are not being heard. We’ve had it drilled into us that the COVID mRNA vaccines are “safe and effective”—that the estimated lives saved far outweigh any damage that has been done.
In the old paradigm of germ theory, this would have made sense to me. Maybe I would have even been tempted to consider myself a martyr for the cause. That is, if I could have recognized at the time that I was being harmed.
Please take a look at this list of COVID vaccine complications, some of which were known about during the clinical trials (which never made it to phase 3 before being released to the public. We were the phase 3 participants.):
The body attacks its own cells as if they were foreign contaminants (autoimmune response).
The body produces modified mRNA (including the intended toxic spike proteins) for six months or longer (as opposed to natural mRNA which lasts only a few hours).
Foreign DNA contamination in the body, with the possibility of permanently modifying the DNA in our cells.
Blood clotting (thrombosis) and blood vessel erosion.
Accelerated aging of organs.
An increased risk of cancer and new “turbo cancers.”
Pfizer’s 9-page list of known side-effects (starting on page 30).
Research-backed ties to 44 diseases, including transverse myelitis, multiple sclerosis, myocarditis, lupus, psoriasis, tinnitus, kidney injury, and others.
Note that I have cited articles that include the perspective of a belief in viruses. This group is also being censored and suppressed, putting their careers in jeopardy in some cases to spread awareness of the harm the COVID vaccine is doing. I'm glad they are speaking out and listening to the people who have been hurt. It gives some confidence and hope.
Some media sources (UK: Daily Mail & People’s Vaccine Inquiry, US: AOL, Harvard) are feeling the need to acknowledge vaccine injuries in order to reassure the public that due diligence is being done and they will have support in case of severe adverse side-effects. But “safe and effective for the majority of people” is still being promoted even though long-term effects are still being discovered and researched. The push is to get more people to take vaccines and to feel confident doing so.
You might think this is only affecting people with pre-existing conditions, but previously healthy athletic individuals are now wheelchair-bound.
To highlight another, but markedly different, professional perspective—Dr. Mike Yeadon spent part of his career working for Pfizer in research & development in regards to respiratory diseases. He left in 2011 to run his own biotech company for a time. He has had training in toxicology on a molecular level. All of this, giving him strong credentials on the subject of respiratory diseases and their potential medical solutions. He was well regarded in his field until he began speaking out about the COVID vaccine in 2021. Now he is on the mainstream media cancel list.
Speaking from his credentials, Dr. Yeadon recently published this short, 20-minute video representing his views on the COVID pandemic and vaccine. I think it is a valuable watch. For more of his perspective, you can also check his Substack.
Dr. Yeadon, like me, is of the opinion that he has seen no evidence of the existence of viruses.
The Freedom of Information Act - No Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 Anywhere
I don’t believe I’ve officially introduced Christine Massey’s research. Christine, while working as a biostatistician during the COVID years, realized something was wrong with the narrative being put out to the public. She began by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to the government requesting any and all documentation showing that SARS-CoV-2 had ever been isolated (in the sense of separating it from all other things). Fair question, considering a pandemic was being declared on the basis of the discovery of a novel virus
This evolved into a massive project for her, in which she submitted FOIA requests to over 200 health and science institutions, who were all unable to provide documentation that the virus was ever isolated.
You can watch her story here:
Christine continues to submit requests on other viruses, highlighting resources and responses on her Substack and website.
Anyone can submit an FOIA request to countries that have this kind of legislation in place. You could even repeat her experiment for yourself. Just keep in mind that virology has its own definition of the word “isolation,” so the way you phrase your request is important if you want to get proof of actual isolation.
If a virus could be isolated, the next step would be to prove that it can be transmitted in the presumed natural manner (whether through inhaling airborne particles or via ingestion or physical contact) and produce the disease attributed to it. This set of criteria—similar to Koch’s Postulates—is the only kind of proof that could convince me that viruses exist. I will return to this topic later, since I plan to write a separate article about contagion studies.
I would rather not believe that I have been taught falsehoods about contagion and germ theory all my life. I would rather not believe that professionals are perpetuating pseudoscience whether intentionally or through oversight. But avoiding seriously looking at the possibility that this is happening is not the same thing as making it untrue.
Thank you for reading.
With love,
Ordinary Girl
An Update & Technology Detox
For those who continue to read, thank you for following along with my health journey. Ordinary Girl will be moving to second and fourth Wednesdays of the month so I can better split my time and energy between my two blogs.
The exception is that I won't be posting on the second week of March. I've decided it's time for a technology detox.
Every so often, I like to abstain from social media for a day or two. It clears my head and encourages me to engage in more meaningful activities.
However, for first two weeks of March, I will be taking a break from technology altogether—with limited exceptions for work and necessary communication. This means no electronic entertainment, no social media, no surfing the Internet or studying online. I don't expect to be bored, though, because I'm planning on doing lots of book reading.
You can check out what else I’ll be doing during my technology break on my other blog, I Believe in Christ.
I'll give a report when I return. I'm a little nervous, but I've also been looking forward to this for a few weeks now. I wish I could go entirely without screens & devices, but it's not practical for certain things, including work. Maybe someday I can go camping again and spend a few days in the woods. I miss the smell of pine.
Take care!