I know a number of people who claim how bad MSG is for them, and humanity. The effect vanishes or reverses when you do a proper double-blind test. In other word

I know a number of people who claim how bad MSG is for them, and humanity. The effect vanishes or reverses when you do a proper double-blind test. In other words, the effect seems to depend on the suggestion. Source: Wikipedia. The MSG-scam, the alleged link between autism and vaccination and the seed oil craze each go back to single persons who published claims that for some reason went viral. In my limited experience, claims like these (flat Earth, Moon Hoax, chemtrails...) went viral because they were outlandish, unsupportable claims not backed by science and sometimes even contradicting personal observation. Some people (and I'd say it's more likely to be scientifically not very literate persons) have a predisposition to latch onto bull crap. Let's call people with this trait '(social(ly)) influenceables' because they're frequently the audience to whatever social influencers choose to spew out. You could present an influenceable with a multiple choice test where possible or plausible theories are presented as answers next to a highly improbable or impossible one, and they sure as hell will agree with the improbable one. So this (if my impression is not skewed, which is very possible) would suggest that while not very scientifically literate, influenceable persons still have an acute sense for what counts as generally accepted and what counts as fringe theory. They don't have to, and they wouldn't (apart from the ongoing background activity of rumors that always float through the hearsay space). But we're not living in ordinary times, our society is in deep crisis, and for some reason, as in the 1930s, fringe theories and mysticism seem to have become attractive again. Well, apparently attractive enough for the U.S. government to peddle outlandish health-related theories.