The Folly of Censoring Dissenting Medical Professionals
If we are really seeking to understand what is true regarding covid-19, would it not be best to allow different epidemiologists and medical professionals to openly discuss the virus and our response?
I think everyone should be concerned when epidemiologists and other medical professionals are ridiculed and/or silenced for holding views that are contrary to the official narrative on Covid-19. Over the past few months, I have watched as videos, articles, and even podcasts have been censored and removed from various media platforms because they were labeled “misinformation.” But if we are really seeking to understand what is true regarding covid-19 (or any other illness), would it not be best to allow different epidemiologists and medical professionals to openly discuss the virus and the related public health response? As I wrote in a lengthy article back in May, I was initially very concerned about Covid but changed my views substantially when I was confronted with evidence that showed the virus was not nearly as severe as I first thought. But had I not been permitted to hear the evidence-based opinions of different epidemiologists and health officials, I likely would have persisted in my errant beliefs.
To be clear, I’m not saying I know everything there is to know about Covid (I don’t), and I’m not saying my personal opinions on Covid matter that much (I don’t think they do). But I DO believe the evidence-based opinions of renowned physicians and epidemiologists matter a great deal, and I believe they should not be automatically censored because they counter the mainstream narrative on Covid.
The following article recounts just one example of how certain viewpoints on Covid have been both ridiculed and censored over the past several months:
Some may be tempted to dismiss this article because it comes from The Federalist, which is admittedly a more conservative website, but I would urge anyone interested in examining all the evidence to consider what these doctors and epidemiologists have to say. Here are just five brief points from the article:
“Bhattacharya and Kulldorff (two leading epidemiologists) reviewed Atlas’s summary of the scientific evidence about COVID-19 and said it is accurate and scientifically defensible. That summary included these points:
1. Children and young adults are at an extremely low risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19.
2. Lockdowns are extremely harmful.
3. Children do not frequently spread this virus to adults.
4. Immunity to this virus is not just because of detected antibodies [i.e., the percent of people who are immune is larger than the percent of people testing positive for antibodies].
5. The safest, strongest strategy for our nation is to diligently protect the vulnerable and open society to end the lockdown.”