I have a something of an elaboration on the origin and function of disinformation agents like Desmet.

I've listened to so many paid liars over the years I feel that just from the tone I can pick up on them in the first few minutes, if not the few few sentences. When I listened to a two hour interview with Desmet back when "mass psychosis formation" was making the rounds, I didn't pick up that he was a liar, and didn't see the "poison pill" in his thesis until near the end of the interview. And he wasn't pushing it, either, it was in response to a question.

So what's the category? Well, as there are useful idiots, there are useful intellectuals. That is, their research and presentations are authentic and close to the truth, but off far enough in critical ways to be harmless. Just like a stage punch is more convincing the closer it is to being a real punch without doing any actual damage.

Judy Woods and Judy Mikovits fall into the same category, although I think now Woods realizes she was incorrect, but also realizes on which side her bread is buttered. Pretty much the same goes for Robert Schoch.

The old rule, of course, is that there's no one better to spread a lie than someone who actually believes it.