• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

We Cannot Afford to Censor Lockdown Sceptics – Professor Martin Kulldorff

by Toby Young
31 March 2021 7:30 PM

We’re publishing an interview today with Martin Kulldorff, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and one of the three original signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration. Among other things, he warns of the dangers of censoring dissenting voices during a pandemic, following his own run-in with Twitter a couple of weeks ago.

The media has been very reluctant to report reliable scientific and public health information about the pandemic. Instead they have broadcast unverified information such as the model predictions from Imperial College, they have spread unwarranted fear that undermine people’s trust in public health and they have promoted naïve and inefficient counter measures such as lockdowns, masks and contact tracing.

While I wished that neither SAGE nor anyone else would argue against long-standing principles of public health, the media should not censor such information. During a pandemic, it is more important than ever that media can report freely. There are two major reasons for this: (i) While similar to existing coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus that we are constantly learning more about and because of that, it takes time to reach scientific conclusions. With censorship it takes longer and we cannot afford that during a pandemic. (ii) In order to maintain trust in public health, it is important that any thoughts and ideas about the pandemic can be voiced, debated and either confirmed or debunked.

This is a great interview done by the same journalist who interviewed Jay Bhattacharya for Lockdown Sceptics last week.

Worth reading in full.

Tags: CensorshipGreat Barrington DeclarationMartin KulldorffPublic Health

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

We Cannot Afford to Censor Dissenting Voices During a Pandemic – Prof Martin Kulldorff

Next Post

British Variant Not More Deadly, Admits PHE

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
10navigator
10navigator
1 year ago

In summary, the Drake equation variables are such that it produces whatever outcome you wish it to. On the one hand there are/have been an infinite number of civilisations in the Universe (let alone our Galaxy with a ‘mere’ 100bn stars), on the other, we are alone. To think this all came about because in 1950, Fermi asked Teller and others the innocent question: “Where is everybody?”

14
0
soundofreason
soundofreason
1 year ago
Reply to  10navigator

Why would we expect to be able to detect life on other planets? Spectra of CO2 and other gasses in atmospheres as the planets pass in front of their suns (relative to us)? Do we see any pattern in the detected composition of exo-planet atmospheres? Say, the older it is the more (or less) CO2? Are there other passive signals we should be looking for? Can we monitor exo-planets’ atmospheres and watch them change as their inhabitants trash their planets (or clean up afterwards)?

For detecting intelligent life, I understand we’re scanning for directed or stray radio signals. Directed radio would include the publicity stunt mentioned in yesterday’s DS. Stray radio signals are another matter. We (mankind) have distinctly reduced the raw power we pump into broadcast TV signals (for example much TV is now delivered over fibre optic or copper cable) and increased the use of low-power local radio signals (cellular phones and WiFi) – so our stray radio emissions (which are wasted energy) have increased and then reduced over just about 100 years. This means there’s a ‘shell’ of radio ‘noise’ expanding away from the Earth at the speed of radio (light) – as this shell passes through an alien solar system it might just be detectable for that brief 100 years or so before fading into the background noise again. If there’s a civilisation based in that solar system it needs to be at a stage when it thinks radio is important and not, say, at a Medieval or smart-phone equivalent or post industrial eco-freak wholemeal sandal wearing stage. Oh, and it needs to be curious enough to wonder ‘Where is everybody?’. Unfortunately, the only aliens we’re likely to be detected by and communicate with are those who still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

9
0
10navigator
10navigator
1 year ago
Reply to  soundofreason

Good article from nine days ago in Britannica regarding the Fermi paradox and the work of SETI (search for extra terrestrial intelligence) and its exceedingly low volume of work. I was particularly struck by a quote from an American astronomer who said, “considering the vast number of stars, radio frequencies and other signal parameters, deducing if extraterrestrial intelligence exists from the results of small scale SETI projects is like deducing whether fish exist by dipping a glass into the ocean.” A good analogy, I thought.

6
0
DHJ
DHJ
1 year ago

Scientists are very good at telling us what doesn’t exist and cannot happen only to be disproved at a later point.

Some people would claim the Earth is the only place where evil exists resulting from an ill-advised experiment with creation. It is isolated by an electrical envelope so that it cannot contaminate the other spheres but is maintained to allow higher beings to experience life in the grossest material realm.

Sounds quite far-out but explains why we’re not encountering other life in a way that cannot be used for political leverage.

11
0
zebedee
zebedee
1 year ago

2.4 children? That’s mean.

17
0
GroundhogDayAgain
GroundhogDayAgain
1 year ago
Reply to  zebedee

👏

3
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago

It is impossible to accurately model climate into the future. Many of the parameters are not well understood or are unknown altogether. There are so many variables like atmosphere, clouds, oceans, water vapour, etc etc and they are all non-linear. Climate is chaotic as Mckitrick, an expert in statistical analysis states in “Climate Dynamics”. The climate system exists to distribute heat about the globe and is the earths thermostat. IPCC make the mistake of assuming CO2 will add to that because they assume the system is linear. —-A very interesting book on this is “The Essence of Chaos” Edward Lorenz. ——However I don’t want to make the mistake of getting into Punch and Judy scientific arguments, because while we are all arguing about science, the western governments are all getting on with the politics based on their “official science” which is mostly modelling. But as Lorenz and Mckitrick and many others point out, models are not science and are not evidence of anything, no matter what the BBC might tell you on the 6 O’clock News.

30
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 year ago

Much as I enjoy Steven Tucker’s writing on this occasion I’ll pass. I enjoy a bit of comedy but given the state of the world today this piece is not worth the effort.

10
-2
For a fist full of roubles
For a fist full of roubles
1 year ago

I am glad to see someone is discussing the topic with the seriousness it deserves.

5
0
RichardTechnik
RichardTechnik
1 year ago

Professor Frank seems incapable of seeing anything broader than anthropogenic induced climate change supposedly caused by small changes in Carbon Dioxide . In other words another grubby scientific prostitute or grifter following the current collectivist thing.

“What ties them together is the predictable result that as environmental conditions on a planet get worse, the total carrying capacity goes down. A civilisation with a population of n will use the resources of its planet to increase n, but at the same time, by using those resources, it tends to degrade the planet’s environment.“

What does ‘worse’ mean and how much ? why is everthing seen as temperature rise ? In the 70s when I was at Uni, the bogeyman was the impending ice age. Why are there not a set of graphs with Falling Planetary temperatures . And why might temperature increase be bad ? Why might any life wish to or be forced to live in cities as a civilisation ? Only humans do on this planet and more than 99% of othere life does not. Yet everything uses the resources of the planet including other lifeforms. It has an effect on the planet but does it enhance or degrade it ? The environment is the environment – can it be said to be good or bad and therefore degraded ?

One thing is for sure – Nothing is perfectly stable without continuous change of any kind. Life forms must evolve to deal with change and if the like of Frank could be time travelled into the last glacial era or the cretaceous era he might find it less comfortable that the prent time for which he is suited.

8
0
WomBat99
WomBat99
1 year ago

I was watching a video on YouTube about looking at ice core samples to see what the climate was about 1000 years ago. Very briefly they showed a chart of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere about 1000AD and it was about 300ppm. I thought we had had 200ppm in the pre-industrial era (whatever that means) and it is only about 380ppm now!

0
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

Episode 36 of the Sceptic: Karl Williams on Starmer’s Phoney Immigration Crackdown, Dan Hitchens on the Assisted Suicide Bill and Tom Jones on Reform’s Local Council Challenge

by Richard Eldred
16 May 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Chinese ‘Kill Switches’ Found in US Solar Farms

15 May 2025
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

16 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

16 May 2025
by Eugyppius

Renaud Camus on the Destruction of Western Education

15 May 2025
by Dr Nicholas Tate

Chris Packham is the New St Francis of Assisi

15 May 2025
by Sallust

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

27

Chinese ‘Kill Switches’ Found in US Solar Farms

27

Chris Packham is the New St Francis of Assisi

38

News Round-Up

17

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

17

Trump’s Lesson in Remedial Education

16 May 2025
by Dr James Allan

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

16 May 2025
by Eugyppius

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

16 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Renaud Camus on the Destruction of Western Education

15 May 2025
by Dr Nicholas Tate

‘Why Can’t We Talk About This?’

15 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

POSTS BY DATE

March 2021
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Feb   Apr »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences