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

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.

Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) for Population Health and Health Inequalities

“…In particular, in October 2020, several prominent epidemiologists proposed that alternative strategies should be developed to provide ‘focused protection’ to those at the greatest risk [ 37 ], e.g., the elderly and those with comorbidities who are at greater risk of severe disease outcomes, including hospitalisation, critical illness, and death [ 4 ], with the intention to let those at lesser risk achieve ‘herd immunity’ through infection [ 37 ]. However, this recommendation was dismissed as “a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence” [ 36 ] and it later transpired was actively suppressed by prominent scientists involved in government advisory roles [ 38 ]. Instead, most continued with the original ‘multipronged population-level strategies’ [ 36 ].…”

Revisiting the rationale of mandatory masking

“…cloth masks, surgical masks and N95/FFP2-type 4 masks) in reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and presents a casebook of the 'collateral damage' of encouraged or enforced mask-wearing, with evidence from latest research spanning the fields of epidemiology, physiology, virology and psychology, to environmental science. Taking a critical stance on any COVID-19 pandemic countermeasures is demonstrably a precarious pursuit [7,8], but the intention of this article is to consider the arguments for and against mask-wearing and mask mandates based on the latest findings and the current state of knowledge in a rational and factual manner, as is necessary for healthy scientific discourse and debate. By definition, the discipline of science must be objective, with theories being developed based on the available evidence in favour of a particular hypothesis.…”

The Impact of Censorship on Covid-19 Policy Formation in the United States

“…35 In California, a law was passed (though overturned after a court-challenge) establishing criminal penalties for doctors purveying "misinformation," defined as opinion "contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus." The "consensus" with regard to Covid meant in practice whatever was proclaimed at a given moment by the CDC, even though this was subject to reversals, 36 which could potentially confirm opinions that would previously have been criminalized under this type of law -such as the assertion that the vaccines would not necessarily prevent transmission.…”

“…On the other hand, even scientific debate on the issue has been throttled from the outset by a blanket of censorship, both governmental and corporate. 1 This has occasioned consequences at multiple levels. Most immediately, by outlawing anti-viral treatments that could have been used early in the pandemic, it led to uncounted numbers of preventable deaths.…”