When the then Executive Editor of the British Medical Journal, Dr Kamran Abbas published an article last November explaining that “science is being suppressed for political and financial gain” and that the pandemic has revealed how the “medical-political complex can be manipulated”, he was right.
During this pandemic the censorship of doctors, scientists, journalists and their opinions and research has been unprecedented.
Multiple governments along with their Big Tech ‘partners’ have been deleting social media accounts and censoring any information and evidence that seems to contradict their own ‘point of view’ and is often labelling it as “fake news”, regardless of how credible or evidence based it might be.
It’s been a big problem in our modern society, and perhaps something that most mainstream media and television watchers are completely unaware of as the nuance can’t be understood from those platforms.
We’re seeing how much power government and a Big Tech corporations have over the thoughts and perception of the masses.
I recently published an article diving deep into why Twitter censored Dr. Martin Kulldorff, an eminent infectious disease professor and jjab expert at Harvard University, after he shared his opinion on jjabs.
Now, Dr. Carl Heneghan can be added to that list. Dr. Heneghan is a professor of evidence based medicine and director of their Centre for Evidence-Based medicine. He’s also a practicing GP, so he has a unique perspective of the pandemic from both sides of the coin, academics and a first hand look inside hospitals.
He, among hundreds of experts in his field, have been quite critical of lockdown measures, mask mandates, and the idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated before we go back to normal.
His perspectives have been clear since the very beginning of the pandemic.
However, you can’t express this within the mainstream or else you’ll be ostracized and labelled “anti-lockdown.”
That’s not science. Science is about discussion, critique and curiosity, not censorship and ridicule.
Last November, Facebook labelled an article about the efficacy of masks in The Spectator as “fake news.” It was written by Dr. Heneghan along with Dr. Tom Jefferson, who’s also from Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
The article centred around a study from Denmark pertaining to the effectiveness of mask wearing to stop COVID spread. It was a “randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence” Heneghan wrote in his Spectator article.
The study found that there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by COVID-19.
1.8 per cent of those wearing masks caught COVID, compared to 2.1 per cent of the control group.
As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is not statistically significant.
Heneghan wrote in his article:
“When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases. The results of the Dankmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses.
“Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare works and seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no difference to whether you get influenza or not.”
I myself published an article regarding a large meta analysis that was recently published in the Journal Environmental Research and Public Health titled, “Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?” It looked at 65 studies pertaining to prolonged mask wearing to examine whether or not there may be any health consequences.
According to the authors,
“Up until now, there has been no comprehensive investigation as to the adverse health effects masks can cause. The aim was to find, test, evaluate and compile scientifically proven related side effects of wearing masks.
“For a quantitative evaluation, 44 mostly experimental studies were referenced, and for a substantive evaluation, 65 publications were found. The literature revealed relevant adverse effects of masks in numerous disciplines.”
The study outlined the physiological changes that occur in the body as a result of prolonged mask wearing, as well as the psychological implications.
The researchers discovered that “relevant, undesired medical, organ, and organ system-related phenomena by wearing masks occur in multiple fields of internal medicine.”
These fields are neurology, psychology, psychiatry, gynecology, dermatology, ENT medicine, dentistry, sports medicine, sociology, microbiology, epidemiology, pediatrics and environmental medicine.
The researchers then go through each of these fields and explain what they found. There are clear, statistically significant, and concerning findings, especially when it comes to respiratory physiology.
That study also touched upon the ability of masks to prevent the spread of COVID, signalling the idea that they don’t appear to be effective.
I received a “fact check” on this article from a third party Facebook fact checker called Lead Stories.
The fact-check didn’t take readers to a fact-check regarding my article, but rather another poorly written article on the internet pertaining to mask wearing. It was quite clear that Lead Stories didn’t even read the article.
There was nothing false in the article, just like Heneghans. I reached out to Lead Stories and they said they would get back to me, but they never did.
“Fact-Checking” can certainly be useful at times, when a story is obviously fake, but in other cases it appears to be blatant censorship.
When peer-reviewed medical literature written by experts in the field is being censored, “fact-checked,” and labelled a conspiracy theory, it’s quite clear that something fishy is going on here.
Should we not have the ability to examine information openly and freely and determine for ourselves what is and what isn’t?
As a result of these “fact-checks”, the Facebook page that receive these strikes are often demonetized and their ‘reach’ is reduced so posts can’t make it to the news feeds of their fans.
This is incredibly detrimental to a publishers business model. Because we have dealt with this so much at Collective Evolution, we have had to reply on our audience now to support our work via membership.
In the end, it’s not about who is right or wrong, if masks are harmful or not, if masks don’t work or not. The fact that voices, evidence, opinions, and concerns are being censored is something people on both sides of the coin should be standing up for.
I personally may not agree with what you have to say, but I will always defend your right to say it.
I can understand the argument to censor certain content if it is truly and evidently dangerous, harmful or poses a threat to others.
But censoring and slandering peer-reviewed medical research and experts in the field for simply presenting evidence that goes against a current event narrative being beamed out by governments and mainstream media doesn’t sit well with most people.
Interestingly, this blatant censorship has served as a catalyst for more people to question what’s really going on here and if governments really do have the best interests of the citizens at heart.
Why do we give them so much power to implement measures that take away our rights and freedoms, especially when there is such a large number of people who clearly disagree?