Another Covid Penny Comes Crashing Down

Another Covid Penny Comes Crashing Down

Another Covid Penny Comes Crashing Down

By Harry Richardson

Well, this is interesting… America’s National Library of Medicine recently published an article about the Covid19 censorship of doctors and health professionals.

This isn’t an insignificant institution. It is situated in Washington at 8600 Rockville Pike and is embedded in a sprawling group of National Institute of Health (NIH) buildings just near Chevy Chase (no, not that Chevy Chase).

The article is a serious academic effort which is based on interviews with a number of health professionals. These were the few who stood up against the medical-industrial complex which had pushed an approved narrative like their lives depended on it.

It details the censorship, defamations, insults and threats they received for daring to challenge the poison dwarf and his capricious diktats.

It’s a long article so I’ll just put the first part up here and link to the rest on the US Government site. It feels to me a bit like a case is really starting to build and in America, they still have capital punishment.

There are some pretty high up officials who are starting to realise what has been done to them. When that penny really drops, it will be interesting to see just how pissed they become.

The whole affair has been like a giant Milgram experiment. Richardson Post readers are well aware of the few who passed the test and the many who failed.

Will 2023 be the year of Nuremberg 2.0 when we say “never again” again?

Harry
Editor in Chief

Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics

Yaffa Shir-Raz,1,2 Ety Elisha,3 Brian Martin,4 Natti Ronel,5 and Josh Guetzkow6

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Abstract

The emergence of COVID-19 has led to numerous controversies over COVID-related knowledge and policy. To counter the perceived threat from doctors and scientists who challenge the official position of governmental and intergovernmental health authorities, some supporters of this orthodoxy have moved to censor those who promote dissenting views. The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences and responses of highly accomplished doctors and research scientists from different countries who have been targets of suppression and/or censorship following their publications and statements in relation to COVID-19 that challenge official views. Our findings point to the central role played by media organizations, and especially by information technology companies, in attempting to stifle debate over COVID-19 policy and measures. In the effort to silence alternative voices, widespread use was made not only of censorship, but of tactics of suppression that damaged the reputations and careers of dissenting doctors and scientists, regardless of their academic or medical status and regardless of their stature prior to expressing a contrary position. In place of open and fair discussion, censorship and suppression of scientific dissent has deleterious and far-reaching implications for medicine, science, and public health.

Keywords: COVID-19, Censorship, Suppression of dissent, Scientific debate, Ethics, Public health

Introduction

The emergence of COVID-19 has led to a proliferation of disputes and disagreements over COVID-related knowledge and policy (Liester 2022), including the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (van Helden et al. 2021), restrictive measures taken by most governments such as social-distancing, lockdowns, contact-tracing and mask requirements (Biana and Joaquin 2020), the use of certain treatments of the disease and the exclusion of others (Mucchielli 2020), the safety and efficacy of vaccines against COVID-19, and the implementation of “vaccine passes” in many countries (Palmer 2021). Harambam (2020) has referred to these disputes as the “Corona Truth Wars.”

Since the beginning of the pandemic, while governments and health authorities argued that restrictive lockdown policies were necessary to deal with the pandemic and prevent deaths, many scientists and medical practitioners questioned the ethics and morality of such tactics, including Nobel laureates and leading physicians and scholars (e.g., AIER 2020; Abbasi 2020; Bavli et al. 2020; Brown 2020; Ioannidis 2020a; Lenzer 2020; Levitt 2020). Furthermore, from early 2020, increasing numbers of scientists and doctors argued that the pandemic, as well as morbidity and mortality figures, were being inflated and exaggerated (Ioannidis 2020; Brown 2020); that the extreme policies and restrictions violated fundamental rights (Biana and Joaquin 2020; Stolow et al. 2020); and that governments were using fear campaigns based on speculative assumptions and unreliable predictive models (Brown 2020; Dodsworth 2021). Some scholars, medical practitioners and lawyers have pointed to biases, concealment and distortions of vital information regarding COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates that misled policymakers and the public (AAPS 2021; Abbasi 2020; AIER, 2020; Fuellmich 2020; King 2020).

It has been argued that much of the discussion around the COVID-19 pandemic has been politicized (Bavli et al. 2020), and that science and scientists are being suppressed due to political and economic interests (Bavli et al. 2020; King 2020; Mucchielli 2020). This criticism has grown, especially following the start of the COVID-19 vaccine campaign. Criticism was made regarding the hastiness with which the mRNA vaccines were granted Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA even for children; the quality of the clinical trials that led to the authorization of the vaccines (including violations of research protocols and evidence of fraud); the lack of transparency regarding the process and data that led to the authorization; the inflation of efficacy estimates; and the minimization or ignoring of adverse events (Doshi 2020, 2021; Fraiman et al. 2022; Thacker 2021).

Critics have argued that the scientific and policy discourse surrounding COVID-19 has not been carried out on a level playing field due to censorship and suppression of views contrary to those supported by medical and government authorities (Cáceres 2022; Cadegiani 2022; Liester, 2022; Mucchielli 2020). Some governments and tech corporations, such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and LinkedIn, have taken measures to censor contrary viewpoints, arguing that views challenging government policies are dangerous misinformation, and therefore censorship is justified to protect public health (Martin 2021).

The present study explores the phenomenon of censorship of dissent from the point of view of well-known scientists and doctors who were censored for their heterodox views on COVID-19, in order to learn about the range of tactics that have been used to censor and silence them, as well as the counter-tactics they have used to resist these attempts.

For the rest of the article, CLICK HERE.

Original Source

Get London Times Updates

Enter Email to get Daily News