This month, we received the very disturbing news that Professor Martin Kulldorff was fired from Harvard. His own account of what happened, ‘Harvard Tramples the Truth: When it came to debating Covid lockdowns, Veritas wasn’t the university’s guiding principle‘, is an account of wrongdoing and a testimony to the rapid decline in scientific decency and the increase in censorship we have seen during COVID-19.
Martin was our first guest on Broken Medical Science, which we launched half a year ago. One of our reasons for creating the channel is the decline in free speech, unbiased reporting and scientific honesty that the COVID-19 pandemic aggravated. Martin was the perfect guest for us because he stood his ground by being truthful to what the science told him.
Few people dared stand up to the madness that most of the world endured in 2020-2022. Officials and politicians made it clear that if anybody questioned their draconian policies about masks, lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations – even of small children and people who had already been infected with the COVID-19 virus – the consequences would be dire and could include firing.
Scientists like Martin Kulldorff and John Ioannidis from Stanford, who will appear in a later podcast, have been proven right. Government policies were wrong on so many levels and led to tremendous collateral damage, which both professors pointed out to us.
Soon, the Supreme Court in the U.S. will begin evaluating the censorship on social media that hit honest scientists. Martin is one of the plaintiffs and he explains in his article that:
At the behest of the U.S. Government, Twitter censored my tweet for contravening CDC policy. Having also been censored by LinkedIn, Facebook and YouTube, I could not freely communicate as a scientist. Who decided that American free-speech rights did not apply to honest scientific comments at odds with those of the CDC director?
Martin notes that, despite being a Harvard professor, he was unable to publish his thoughts in American media, which is why he took to social media, which then blocked him. This is extremely worrying for democracy in the U.S. Martin wanted to warn against lockdowns and he was right. He is Swedish, and as we discuss in our podcast with him, Sweden did better than virtually all other Western countries by not locking down and by not mandating facemasks. Numerous studies have shown Sweden’s excess death rate to be among the lowest in Europe during the pandemic and in several analyses, Sweden was at the bottom.
On Sunday March 24th, we decided to test the censorship on YouTube. It took YouTube less than an hour to remove a video with Professor Gøtzsche and Professor Christine Stabell Benn, one of the most outstanding vaccine researchers in the world, in which they discuss non-specific beneficial and harmful effects of vaccines. The video is announced this way on our website:
In this episode, Peter C Gøtzsche discusses with Professor Christine Stabell Benn the research that has shown that live, attenuated vaccines reduce total mortality by much more than their specific effects would predict; that non-live vaccines increase total mortality; that the order in which the vaccines are given is important for mortality; what the harms are of the COVID-19 vaccines; and why they are overused.
YouTube informed us that: “Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our medical misinformation policy.”
We appealed and received YouTube’s standard message for appeals: “We reviewed your content carefully, and have confirmed that it violates our medical misinformation policy.” It took YouTube less than an hour to evaluate the video carefully. This is impressive, as it lasts 54 minutes. Who did this work and what are the credentials for this person? Are they any better than for the two professors who discussed vaccines? Hardly. It has been documented that fact-checkers rarely have any medical or scientific background and that they have very often labelled correct information as being false.
The video has been online on our website for six months, and we do not have censorship, of course. Why are social media still preventing rational scientific debate about the benefits and harms of vaccines? Free debate lies at the heart of science. This is what makes us all wiser and advances science.
The problem with censorship is that public trust in science declines. People cannot know what has been hidden from them, which creates distrust that could reduce uptake of important vaccines.
Another reason why scientists must be allowed to debate freely online and in public is that policies and politicians operate in the public sphere. The current state where people are advised to ignore these debates if they come out at all and instead go to websites of governments, the World Health Organisation or the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to find ‘truthful’ information is not what we want in an enlightened society.
Furthermore, official information has been proven wrong again and again, e.g. the information from the CDC about influenza vaccination is seriously misleading and contradicted by the most reliable science we have.
Censorship can cause other scientists to keep quiet for fear of harassment, which will aggravate the misinformation because those left will say what falls in line with current Government policy.
Harvard, once an esteemed and trustworthy source in science, has lost its way. The firing of Martin for speaking freely during the pandemic is a disaster for Harvard’s reputation. There is a petition for having Martin reinstated at Harvard, but we hope he is not interested in going back, which does not deserve to have a professor like Martin among its faculty.
Martin should be honoured for his courage. He stayed loyal to the science, which all scientists should do, no matter the consequences for themselves, instead of being loyal to a world that ran amok in what looked like a competition in stupidity. History won’t be kind to what happened.
Dr. Peter Gøtzsche co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration, once considered the world’s preeminent independent medical research organisation. In 2010 Gøtzsche was named Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen. Janus Bang is a documentary filmmaker. This article was first published by the Brownstone Institute.
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.
Turbo Cancers And Covid Jab Mandates – latest leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, including your local Reform Party candidate, your local vicar, media and friends online.
In The Telegraph, William Sitwell rails against the BBC Today programmes. He writes: “And it’s that strong whiff of institutionalised bias, of Left-wing consensus, that emanates from the BBC; such a strong whiff that not only led to the launch of the channel (GB News) – but saw audiences flock to it”.
He later says: “That air of disdain to PMs and broadcasting interlopers sustains as if
they are like the Collins English dictionary: a benign and righteous breath of official, correct air”.
Reading his piece, I was thinking to myself – welcome to the party; he’s very late to it, but it’s good to see more and more people seeing the blatent bias of the BBC.
He then concludes his piece with; “Now this is all sweet agony for me, as I’m a Today addict. I can shout at the radio, but I can’t give it up.”
I don’t understand the self-flagellant mindset that can continue to listen to dangerously biased news outputs when the person themselves is aware that it is biased. Perhaps he’s addicted to having his piss boiled?
‘Strong whiff’?? More like foul stink. The Biased Bollox Corpse is an arrogant, self-entitled, over-privileged, money-grubbing bunch of Leftard parasites who think they’re justified in charging everyone with any kind of device with live programmes on them – produced and paid for by the BBC OR NOT – £170 a year.
Daylight robbery in order to fund their *crap journalism, self-righteous climate drivel, marxist dogma and anti-British propaganda. No way should anyone be forced to support this outdated, clapped out, 100-year-old anachronism.
People should just refuse to pay, keep their front doors locked and block entry to any officious busybody trying to talk their way in to see what they’re watching. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO ENTER.
*crap journalism such as that Kuenssberg fishwife allowing Chris Packham to make a false claim about The Daily Sceptic without challenging it and then putting it on TwitterX. I’m very pleased to see that the morons have had to withdraw that programme from catch-up viewing.
And if Netflix is stupid enough to start streaming live programmes, exposing their UK subscribers to spurious claims by the BBC that they are now owed £170 a year by Netflix viewers for NOT watching BBC programmes, they will find their subscriber list diminishing fast.
Being American, Netflix probably doesn’t have a clue about the ridiculous situation in the UK that allows us to be forced into paying for something we don’t like or watch on pain of fines or even prison if the fines aren’t paid.
They should rename the BBC ‘Gangsters ‘R’ Us’.
…and caused one recorded human case of ‘pink eye’.
DS covered this yesterday – No. Humans have culled [tens of] millions of birds worldwide.
What is so called Bird Flu doing in milk & why only in one fifth of it ? Let’s go the Whole Hog ( if you’ll pardon the pun ) & put it in All of the milk !
It’s an intended double whammy of course – the poultry and dairy industry in one fell swoop. Nice try. Not.
My thoughts exactly.
Seems to me like natural immunity is doing its job nicely…
Petronella ends with…
It’s heart wrenching stuff and supports the little held belief that feminism does far more harm to women than good. I genuinely feel for her, and it’s encouraging that some feminists are finally starting to see it for what it is – a wholly divisive ideology leaves lives in tatters. I hope, at some point in the future, Petronella might also consider that at least half of those broken lives belong to men.
It very much hasn’t dawned on young women who see themselves as Princesses to be gained as a wonderful prize. Well, at 20 they might be, at 30 considerably less so especially if they’ve shagged every stag in the district and got a kid or two (different colours), and at 40 the ‘prize’ is starting to look like a saggy Booby Prize with all sort of baggage you wouldn’t want to go near with a barge pole. Want to end up lonely and alone.? Treat men like disposable servants to enable your every desire not partners to share your lives with. No wonder so many young men have checked-out from this game.
On the other hand she did go out with BJ so perhaps she had a lucky escape not to have been one of his deserted spouses left with traumatised children?
His second spouse stole him from his first, then whined when someone stole him from her. As usual, the women get all the sympathy.
Go out with is putting it mildly ! Word is that he knocked her up then rejected the situation ending the relationship via one of those clinics that you can’t silently pray outside causing her to have a breakdown ! Lovely Chap !
Word is that she decided to commit adultery with her married boss editor of the Spectator for 4 years, then when he refused to leave his second wife for her, she went to the press in revenge and got him sacked as vice-chairman of the Tory party. It always takes two people to commit adultery, each as guilty as the other, but women always get sympathy no matter what they do.
It is also the case that women often get deliberately pregnant in order to force a man into marriage, despite assuring him that they were using contraceptives the whole time. Sometimes their trick works, sometimes it doesn’t.
Next we’ll be having “Adultery Pride Marches” with Adultery Flags in the streets, no doubt.
I don’t recall feminism as I understood it telling me to behave and think like a man, just to honour who I was as a woman. It certainly never told me not to fall in love or choose to live equally with another. External economic pressures and business practices, alongside increases in the cost of living, etc. were far more instrumental in forcing women into the paid workforce and, once there, to make the decision whether to ‘break the glass ceiling’ or not than feminism per se. Trouble is, ‘feminism’ as an ideology and brand is an easy whipping boy [sic] in these circumstances, unlike the large scale social and economic evolutions of complex industrial societies.
You might not have been explicitly told to behave like a man, but all the messaging was, and still is, there. I’ll walk into a pub now, see all the tattoo-covered girls drinking pints while effing and blinding, and think “F”ck. They’re more masculine than most blokes these days!”. Yes, economic pressures now make it all but impossible to raise a family unless both parents are working, but that hasn’t always been the case, and certainly hasn’t been the main motivator for most women as they pursue the dreamlike life they’ve been told men enjoy. The reality, of course, is somewhat different, but feminism has been spewing, on play and repeat, that women must, as you put it “break the glass ceiling”. There were no ceilings to break. Nothing that women had to ‘smash’ through. All there ever was were opportunities that women hadn’t previously experienced that men willingly gave them. In fact, men have actively encouraged women in the workforce. But, sshhh, we don’t talk about that. No, feminism doesn’t leave anything to chance. It makes sure that women believe in the age old story of male oppression and continues to give that tale life long after the embers of truth went stone cold.
I respect your opinion but wholeheartedly disagree. Feminism isn’t the whipping boy, it’s always been the boy holding the whip.
We’ll agree to disagree. I too am dismayed at some of the language and attitudes displayed by some of today’s young people, particularly with regard to personal relationships: even in jest its really toxic yet often unreflecting of their actual experiences of interpersonal communication. I wonder how much of it is being ‘nudged’ by dark forces on social media in order to destabilise the whole concept of the family. But that’s a whole other debate.
This is well worth listening to (nothing to do with feminism btw) – https://unherd.com/watch-listen/porn-and-social-media-are-killing-childhood/
I think a lot of the concerning trends we’re seeing in young people’s relationships are explained here. It’s a very even-handed account of young girls and guys relationship with their devices, and the immediate and long term damage.
Is it because of women behaving like men (tats, pints, effing & blinding) that so many men are pretending that they’ve become women and posing effeminately in ‘ho’ clothes and overdone make-up with coy smirks?
“BBC removes Laura Kuenssberg episode after complaint over Chris Packham comments”
I’d call that a win for Tobes and the DS!
Only a partial win. The toe-rag Packham owes Toby and the DS team a grovelling apology.
Right enough, but at least the Beeb backed down so it’s a start
“You need a TV licence to watch Netflix — and you risk fines of £1,000 for not having one”
Earlier this month, the TV license fee rose 6.6% up to £169.50 a year. …
In a statement to the House of Commons, the Culture secretary said the £10.50 hike would be “felt” by households but added that the BBC was facing “increasing pressure” due to “a rapidly changing media landscape”.
Lying & propaganda costing a whole lot more these days, obvs.
“ONS civil servants refuse to return to the office for two days a week” – The union argues that staff have proven their ability to
workfudge the numbers flexibly and attempts to remove that right are unfairThere, fixed it for you.
“BBC removes Laura Kuenssberg episode after complaint over Chris Packham comments”— Good news!
“Hundreds of UK’s brightest students denied chance to train as doctors”
Years ago a news report revealed that US applicants for medical schools were being rejected for having conservative political views, so I wonder if that is also happening here.
“Bird flu virus found in one-fifth of U.S. milk samples, testing shows”
Watch this trend closely, as it is just another scam to destroy the dairy industry, as part of Gates’ aim to “Abolish Animal Agriculture” and force us to eat bugs.
“Sunak is right to put Britain on a war footing. Its meaning goes beyond defence” — Its meaning is that Sunak is creating a distraction to cling to power.
“Britain must brace itself for a wave of nationalisation” —Good! Nationalisation of transport and utilities is exactly what we need.
Privatisation has been a total disaster.
In your support of Nationalising things, I can only assume you are too young to remember when they were.
BBC issues a statement after removing comments. Maybe something can be learned from the BBC.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/29/are-we-being-gaslit-over-the-cause-of-the-princess-of-waless-cancer
Nag, nag, nag.
What we have learned is not to listen to the Royal Family on medical matters (‘We’re not doctors!’ No you’re not) or anything else for that matter, especially how bloody wonderful DIVERSITY is a la Charles 3.
They’re wheeled out to simply parrot the Leftard Establishment narrative verbatim.
Time to release the Royal Family into freedom, become a Republic and restore true democracy via Referenda on all crucial topics, especially migration legal & illegal. The Swiss make it work and so could we.