Expert comparative evaluation (ECE) tool

Expert comparative evaluation (ECE) tool

Calibrate : to standardize (something, such as a measuring instrument) by determining the deviation from a standard so as to ascertain the proper correction factors

Merriam Webster

How can someone recognize which expert to trust with answers to important questions such as: are the Cov-vaxx injections safe and effective? Should I enlist for the injection? Should I do the same for my child? Should these injections be mandated? The ECE tool was created to equip the public, enabling each person to navigate the many experts encountered in this process. To avoid sad incident such as the infamous episode involving children in a French-Canadian talk show. We must develop a keener sense of which expert to rely on; certainly not young children irresponsibly thrown in the debate.

Unfortunately, mass media is following a tendency of being stubbornly bias instead of the being the impartial sources of information they are supposedly meant to be. With all the conflicting views, contradictory information and opposing expert opinion circulating, one lay person can simply decide to blindly trust and follow the herd. Others will remain quite lost, perplexed, or feeling manipulated.  

yellow signboards on post during day
Experts help you find your way
Photo credit unsplash Anne RoslyAnne Rosly@anne_roseView profile@anne_rose

The average citizen is left wondering who to believe, to listen and to rely on.  Feeling confused on where the Truth lies and how it can be found.

Calibrate your experts; validate their expertise

In all spheres of our life, we are surrounded by measuring tools that can provide data about common parameters within our daily activities (time, distance, temperature, to name a few) and can support the monitoring of our health (glucose level, hemoglobin, blood pressure, etc.). They can also be paramount in assuring the safety of our surroundings (engineering tools). The many houses, bridges and buildings came to be thanks to the numerous tools and measuring instruments.  As they play a key role in important decisions we continuously make, the tools providing valuable data must be precise, accurate and reliable. Therefore, essential instruments are regularly calibrated to ensure trustworthy readings. Without calibration, their reading loses all value, and the instrument is useless.

Different experts are called to the many public platforms to share their views, recommendations, or conclusions in the matter of safety, efficacy, and necessity of the Cov-vaxxines, their rollout and related mandates or passport. These public experts whom we are meant to rely on, generally hold ranks to support the government-media-big pharma discourse.  Many are instrumental in the implementation of sanitary measures, public safety directives and health policies. On the other hand, several dissident expert voices are being heard in the background but are being silence. It is thus paramount to ascertain the credibility, accuracy, and competence of the opposing groups to know the validity of the stances.

This can be done by verifying their affirmations and statements. The verification of even one topic through scientific articles can be quite time consuming and requires a good understanding of the vocabulary and key concepts, specific of the field. Unfortunately, the layman does not have the minimal knowledge and understanding to do a proper verification. Therefore, the regular individual will mainly rely on different fact-checkers trusting them with the task. Another way to validate an expert’s opinion would be to evaluate the expert himself. This option is under-utilized if even pursued. It involves the verification of the professional background by looking at the relevance of his education and main field of work. All this is to ensure that the baggage of knowledge is pertinent and strong enough.

The Expert Comparative Evaluation Tool we created is meant to do just that; it is an interactive spreadsheet meant to be used as calibration device for those experts. This analysis tool is a semi-quantitative guideline to be used to compare protagonists or to ascertain the caliber of anyone’s competency regarding the SARS-CoV2 crisis.

The evaluation grid can be utilized to be critical of everyone displayed in the media as reference. Do they have the minimal required for competency to be called subject matter expert? Are they fit to give their expert opinion on the matter? If they don’t have the required minimal competency, they are not credible, and their views hold no value.  Or worse, are we ignoring the voice of many dissidents who may well be subject matter authorities? Subject matter experts must be highly competent individuals with verifiable credentials.  They cannot be self-proclaimed experts relying second-hand back-alley information. Those are simple parrots, allowing their professional title to be used as promotional tools for deficient (and dangerous) rules and policies.

Making an informed choice

Primarily, one mustn’t limit their information source to mass media, government, or Big-pharma rhetoric. In a better world, when someone lacks understanding and knowledge regarding certain important facets of the issue at hand, he first acknowledges his shortcomings then seeks to educate himself. This education can be done by different means: reading peer reviewed articles, seeking opposite perspectives, listening to broad range of different sources of information. The best way to get to the proper information is to keep an open mind by letting go of fear while exercising critical thinking, respecting logic, and using basic common sense. The goal is to become a minimally knowledgeable individual when voicing an opinion or deciding between two critical options.

Being able to answer the five important questions below is indicative of a person’s cov-injection decision readiness.

Are you fully informed? Learn about Maddie

Who should be evaluated?

Whether from one’s entourage, the media, or personal quest, information, opinions, advices are coming from every side, by professionals as well as from people of all walks of life.  Who should be evaluated?

The answer is simple: everyone. Everyone who have a say in the issue should be evaluated. Although realistically this cannot be done systematically, there are some groups for which it should be required. Thus, some people really need to be processed through the ECET. These are the most influential voices in the mass media outlet, the experts, the dissident voices, the influencers, the doctors providing advice, and most certainly the decisions makers and their advisors. Do not assume that they know what they are doing. It is important to verify the competency of policy makers and advisory board members. You can also use the tool on yourself as an introspection exercise; am I fit to give advice, to influence, to coerce on the matter? Am I being a danger to myself or others by pretending that I know it all? It is also more then appropriate to verify the value of the many facts-checkers who are putting their say in the matter.

According to the world in data (January 2022 data), Germany, China, Canada, France, and Australia are amongst the countries with the most stringent measures in the Covid-19 crisis so far.

It would be interesting to obtain their government’s adviser’s final score on the ECE. Are those countries being led by real competent, independent expert in the field? Are the decisions measures, policies, based on tainted biased beliefs of a group, rather than on solid expert knowledge and analysis? It is now time to find out.

Seek advice from a minimally competent biotechnology and life science individual

Only competent individuals should be allowed to opine scientifically, or medically on the Covid-19 complex issues. One must only seek advise from the most competent or expert individuals in their life while respecting their specific scope and limits of expertise is most important. With the ECE, an Evaluated Level of Expertise (ELE) of 60 is minimal for one to be deemed competent. Therefore, individual endowed with multidisciplinary knowledge of at least three different fields relevant to the SARS -CoV0-2 crisis is most adequate and hold a valuable oversight. The more diverse the field of competence, the more valuable is the expert’s perspective.

Bear in mind that during a professional life, many go through career reorientation to accommodate changes in their personal life, in their perspectives or in their conscience. Even when several years have past since the career change, one can remain competent as they retained a lot of the vast specific original knowledge. Like riding a bicycle. In this person’s toolbox, the knowledge is still accessible and valuable and will enable such individual to have enough pertinent oversight over subjects pertaining to their previous field of expertise.

If you are left feeling doubtful of your leaders’ expertise by the end of such an exercise, allow yourself to challenge the promoted narrative, policies, and rules.  Finally, it is not only a right, but also a duty to demand unbiased expert opinions and open dialogue on all crucial issues brought down by the Covid-19 crisis.

One advice: know your expert! But how can one navigate the many experts?

The different field of expertise can be consulted below to get a better understanding of their professional frontier.

Fields of competence
Biotechnology & life science R&D
Molecular biology, genetics, bioengineering
Epidemiology, biostatistics
Bio-Pharmaceutical production manufacturing, good manufacturing practices, regulatory affairs, pharmacovigilance, pharmacokinetics, quality assurance
Biochemistry, epigenetic, immunology, microbiology, virology, infectious diseases
Other biomedical field
Clinical research
Medical laboratory  Analytical methods (laboratory)
Occupational Health and Safety
OSHA regulations, Risk management, infection prevention, audit, respiratory protection, emergency preparedness,
Ethics and moral competency
Social, bioethics, clinical research ethics, medical and science ethics competency
through education, personal or professional
Medical specialty
GP,  cardiology, neurology, immunology, infectious disease, virology, medical microbiology other medical speciality
Alternative and holistic  medicine: homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture,  osteopathy, etc.
Science field
Scholars and academics
Higher education from unrelated field: ex: geology, accounting
Judge, lawyers, journalist, businessman


Ready to use the ECE tool?

  1. Download the tool (scroll down to get it).
  2. Once downloaded, to be able to use the spreadsheet, you need to activate modifications.
  3. Save it in a location of your choice. We suggest you give it the name of the person you wish to evaluate.
  4. You are now ready to evaluate the person of your choice.

To keep things simple, level of education and amount of experience were not specified into a scaling system. For some, level of education is what matters most. For others, field work is the best way to acquire expertise. It must be consistent for non-bias evaluation or comparison of individual (s). An “all or nothing” pointing system can also be an option when using the ECE tool. Being a comparison tool, the numeric quantitative accuracy is secondary in importance. What really matters is that the user of this grid must be able to use the same scaling for each individual subject of their evaluation.


  1. Identify the individual (s) for which you want to perform the evaluation.
  2. In one spreadsheet you can perform up to two evaluations.
  3. You can select the relationship for the second individual (just another individual or a detractor of the first).

Main field of competence

  • Find reliable sources of information on this (these) individuals, using different search engine. We recommend Google Scholar and DuckDuckGo. When searching information about an individual, avoid sources that are spreading highly negative opinion, using demeaning, (sometimes downright insulting) words or involved in stone casting of the person. Regardless of your initial opinion of the person, select sources that provide the most positive view of him. Insert the selected reliable sources in the corresponding space provided for it (D 65 to 68 and G 65 to 68).
  • Using the selected sources, find all information that are relevant to the different fields of competence. In the ECET spreadsheet, select all relevant competence and corresponding justification for the competence (education, work experience or both) for each.
  • Based on the information gathered, determine the main field of competence for the individual. Select the main field of competence in cell (D3 or G3) and select the corresponding score in cell (E3 or H3).

Multiplication factor

  • If applicable, select front line Covid or cov-vax experience.
  • Determine if the individual is independent and objective through the different justification (yes or no). *Make sure cells D3 (or G3) and E3 (or H3) are filled out.

Recognition Bonus

  • Select the different parameters of great achievement with ‘’yes’’ if present.
  • If the individual has received any high recognitions award (ex. Nobel price) select yes.
  • Select if the individual’s view, perspective, recommendations, opinion, is independent (yes or no).
  • Justify the selection (Not affiliated to Hospital, University, Government, Media, Pharmaceuticals, suffered great loss, retired, or has ties to government, Pharma or Bid tech).
  • Review writings published from this individual. Is he a prolific peer reviewed author?
  • When all is done, let the tool determine the level of competence for the individual. Based on this final score, how knowledgeable, reliable, or trustworthy is this ‘’ expert’’, the fact-checker… How reliable are you?

Actions post-evaluation

  1. To save your evaluation, print the file to PDF.
  2. Take the time to educate yourself, to know the risk, and to breathe.

Share and donate

Share your knowledge

You enjoyed the ECE tool and would like to help us create more of the like: donate

Leave a Reply