The participants in our study, as well as those mentioned in the introduction and many others not included in our sample, are not fringe scientists. Most of them are leading figures: researchers and doctors who prior to the COVID-19 era had a respectable status, with many publications in the scientific literature, some of them with books and hundreds of publications, some headed academic or medical departments, some of them were editors of medical journals, and some had won significant awards. Nevertheless, as our findings show, they were not protected from censorship, nor from the suppression and defamation campaign launched against them. This fact indicates that the message is that no one is exempt from censorship and no academic or medical status, senior as it may be, is a guaranteed shield against it.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the science – censoring dayNovember 13th, 2022 |
 7 comments to Samizdata quote of the science – censoring day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Haven’t looked at the article yet, but wanted to say that the quote raises an interesting issue: if heads of academic or medical departments and editors of medical journals do not get to participate in forming the consensus, then who does?
During the pandemic I posted a few articles citing the Great Barrington Declaration. One of my friends, who accepted the British government’s ‘science’, told me that he couldn’t accept evidence unless it came from the highest authority. I went on the GBD website and copied and pasted the impressive list of names and their credentials. He then argued that he couldn’t accept evidence that hadn’t been peer reviewed. I pointed him in the direction of the Lancet. I was then told that I shouldn’t be using an ‘argument from authority’. At that point, realising that I couldn’t win either way, I asked him to provide me with evidence that he considered satisfactory that supported the way the British government handled the pandemic. None came.
Rational thinking went out of the window and panic set in. There’s so much rowing back to do, it’s no wonder they want an amnesty!
Perun on the culture of coverup and lying in the Russian army. Vranyo, it is called. The video is useful in its own right, but I’ve posted the link because of the comments beneath. Western commenters saying the same thing happens in their company, or in many cases the NHS. When lying gets you what you want and keeps you out of trouble, why not lie? If you tell the truth no matter what, and you are alone because no-one else will rock the boat, then every man’s hand will be turned against you. That is what is happening with the entire failed covid effort.
>>just noticed the next post down, which invalidates this comment. Ah well.
In California the censorship of medical doctors is the law.
One cannot have doctors telling the truth about Covid – or telling the truth about many other matters as well.
1st Amendment? Do not be silly – the 1st Amendment does not apply to speech the “Woke” Corporations (and their political servants) do not like.
“Climate denial” will be the next thing to be censored.
For example, the brainwashed voters of New York State just voted to borrow over four Billion Dollars (“a Billion here, a Billion there – soon you are talking real money”) on “Climate Change” projects.
It is not really getting much hotter in New York State, it is just the normal data tampering. But the bond market would lose business if voters were generally made aware of that, and (even more important) a lot of very important people would be made to look silly – so “Climate Denial” will soon be forbidden, and not just in the United States.
By the way how many voters know that “issue bonds” means BORROW MONNEY?
The state of education (largely just Frankfurt School “Woke” Marxist drivel now) is so bad, that it would not astonish me to learn that most voters do not know that “issue bonds” means BORROW MONEY.
“Bond issues” nearly always pass, in every State, when put to a vote – as, I suspect, most people do not know that this means borrow money.
Perhaps telling voters that “issue bonds” means BORROW MONEY will soon be forbidden.
The argument of the left is “if you are not a scientist shut up” – but when distinguished scientists dissent from the Collectivist line, the left’s position is still “shut up and obey”. And, make no mistake, the left includes international government bureaucracy – and the international Corporations. The idea that the left and the Corporations are opposed is the great illusion – they are on the same team. Team Collectivism.
The article answers that question. Briefly, social media and the MSM and the science-funding government bureaucrats.
For example, woe betide any medical researchers who were in the habit of using Google Docs to keep their scientific colleagues abreast of their findings.
The text also notes that Google had a conflict of interest over such censoring:
(Whether the right hand of Google knoweth enough about what its left hand doeth that that conflict of interest played an immediate role in their censorship or not, I cannot say.)
The article has a lot more information than just that.