badgolferman
2024-09-11 11:13:12 UTC
The COVID era has been difficult for scientists whose ideas run against the
grain of powerful scientific and government bureaucracies. Even for
university scientists with unblemished reputations in the before times, the
price of speaking up has been vilification by social media companies, the
media, and, unfortunately, even scientific journals and our fellow
scientists. It is a wonder that any scientists dared to speak out, with
only their commitment to the truth as a reason to do so.
In a recent letter to the House, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that
the Biden-Harris administration "repeatedly pressured" his social media
empire to censor speech it didn't like. His company often acceded to those
demands, and "with the benefit of hindsight and new information,"
Zuckerberg now admits it was wrong. At the behest of the government,
Zuckerberg's Facebook censored even true speech about dangerous
gain-of-function research, school closures, and COVID-19 vaccine injuries.
No scientist wants the information they share on social media to be labeled
as "misinformation" or to have their accounts suspended for scientific
speech, which Zuckerberg's under-qualified censors often did. Such labels
represent a direct smear on scientists' reputations—the coin of the realm
in science; as a consequence of this censorship regime, many scientists opt
to stay silent or watch from the sidelines, not being willing to risk such
a label.
Meanwhile, scientists who do choose to participate in debates about science
or public health policy are met with slanderous attacks, not just by social
media companies but by scientist bruisers who lobby accusations of racism,
sexism, antisemitism, false allegations of conflicts of interest, and even
mass murder at us rather than engage in good faith debate. The public, who
would benefit from sober, reasoned discourse, is instead presented with
bluster from scientific bullies who intimidate their targets into silence.
We've both experienced it firsthand.
One of the authors of this piece, Jay Bhattacharya, coauthored the Great
Barrington Declaration (GBD) in October of 2020, which called for the
focused protection of the vulnerable elderly, for opening schools, and for
lifting lockdowns. In response, the prestigious British Medical Journal
(BMJ) published a piece falsely alleging that the GBD had received support
from the dreaded Koch brothers. In Left-leaning academia, such an
accusation is like the mark of Cain, and many scientists feared associating
with the GBD as a result, though they agreed with its ideas.
correction to the article because there was no Koch funding for the GBD.
But the defamatory damage was already done, and many scientists stayed
silent as schools closed and children were harmed, even though they knew
better. They did not want to be similarly smeared.
Next month, a conference will be held at Stanford University, featuring
civil discussions among scientists who differ on how best to manage
pandemics and prevent their occurrence. Four-plus years into the COVID-era,
it is far past time for such a discussion.
https://www.newsweek.com/scientific-establishment-turning-science-dogmatic-tool-oppression-opinion-1949865
grain of powerful scientific and government bureaucracies. Even for
university scientists with unblemished reputations in the before times, the
price of speaking up has been vilification by social media companies, the
media, and, unfortunately, even scientific journals and our fellow
scientists. It is a wonder that any scientists dared to speak out, with
only their commitment to the truth as a reason to do so.
In a recent letter to the House, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that
the Biden-Harris administration "repeatedly pressured" his social media
empire to censor speech it didn't like. His company often acceded to those
demands, and "with the benefit of hindsight and new information,"
Zuckerberg now admits it was wrong. At the behest of the government,
Zuckerberg's Facebook censored even true speech about dangerous
gain-of-function research, school closures, and COVID-19 vaccine injuries.
No scientist wants the information they share on social media to be labeled
as "misinformation" or to have their accounts suspended for scientific
speech, which Zuckerberg's under-qualified censors often did. Such labels
represent a direct smear on scientists' reputations—the coin of the realm
in science; as a consequence of this censorship regime, many scientists opt
to stay silent or watch from the sidelines, not being willing to risk such
a label.
Meanwhile, scientists who do choose to participate in debates about science
or public health policy are met with slanderous attacks, not just by social
media companies but by scientist bruisers who lobby accusations of racism,
sexism, antisemitism, false allegations of conflicts of interest, and even
mass murder at us rather than engage in good faith debate. The public, who
would benefit from sober, reasoned discourse, is instead presented with
bluster from scientific bullies who intimidate their targets into silence.
We've both experienced it firsthand.
One of the authors of this piece, Jay Bhattacharya, coauthored the Great
Barrington Declaration (GBD) in October of 2020, which called for the
focused protection of the vulnerable elderly, for opening schools, and for
lifting lockdowns. In response, the prestigious British Medical Journal
(BMJ) published a piece falsely alleging that the GBD had received support
from the dreaded Koch brothers. In Left-leaning academia, such an
accusation is like the mark of Cain, and many scientists feared associating
with the GBD as a result, though they agreed with its ideas.
correction to the article because there was no Koch funding for the GBD.
But the defamatory damage was already done, and many scientists stayed
silent as schools closed and children were harmed, even though they knew
better. They did not want to be similarly smeared.
Next month, a conference will be held at Stanford University, featuring
civil discussions among scientists who differ on how best to manage
pandemics and prevent their occurrence. Four-plus years into the COVID-era,
it is far past time for such a discussion.
https://www.newsweek.com/scientific-establishment-turning-science-dogmatic-tool-oppression-opinion-1949865