nerd
Senior Member
- Messages
- 863
Here is an interview of Dr. Malone and his experience with the editing and publishing of research on repurposed drugs, and how censorship becomes real in an indirect manner.
Considering how often we've discussed Ivermectin here and how the FLCCC tends to overstate the drug, this gives the insight what really happened when they were rejected. Some mainstream media articles have pointed out an inaccurate citation, and I could confirm it. Despite all the peer-review, it's surprising that this mistake wasn't identified. Regardless, this wasn't the reason for the post-review rejection.
I think the articles of Bryant, Lawrie and Andrew Hill and their colleagues exhibit better quality. And they got their work published finally. But only after many attempts, a lot of publicity, and similar rejections after initially positive peer-reviews.
Malone makes some unsettling claims about scientists being detained as psychiatric cases for not following the pro-vaccine narrative. Researchers losing their jobs for going against the narrative.
I've also followed reports from journalists who were internally threatened and censored at news organizations for reporting anything controversial that could go against the narrative. Social media remove and filter anything that goes against the narrative as well.
Why is it so important to prevent discussions on early treatment options? It's like the complete system changes and barley anyone notices because the media keeps using all critical thinkers as scapegoats for why we still have this whole pandemic.
I think all they do with this censoring is that they confirm the doubts of the undecided that there's something more going on with the whole pandemic and the vaccination. I think censoring is inefficient and it's never worth the cost. Because now, we have this precedence and who knows what is considered "dangerous information" in the future.
More frustrating is that most people blindly follow the narrative without second guessing, without checking. You can't even engage in a discussion with them. They immediately classify you as a conspiracy theorist or whatever the media says about similar people.
They grow up with this idea that the system is perfect and that politicians, politics organs, and promi scientists can never be wrong and that they can always be trusted with any claim they make. It was similar with CFS, which is now stigmatized and this is the ongoing narrative in the medical community.
If not even the medical community is able to second guess each other and themselves, how can we expect a whole system of lower qualified (by average) to recover from this defunct system?
Considering how often we've discussed Ivermectin here and how the FLCCC tends to overstate the drug, this gives the insight what really happened when they were rejected. Some mainstream media articles have pointed out an inaccurate citation, and I could confirm it. Despite all the peer-review, it's surprising that this mistake wasn't identified. Regardless, this wasn't the reason for the post-review rejection.
I think the articles of Bryant, Lawrie and Andrew Hill and their colleagues exhibit better quality. And they got their work published finally. But only after many attempts, a lot of publicity, and similar rejections after initially positive peer-reviews.
Malone makes some unsettling claims about scientists being detained as psychiatric cases for not following the pro-vaccine narrative. Researchers losing their jobs for going against the narrative.
I've also followed reports from journalists who were internally threatened and censored at news organizations for reporting anything controversial that could go against the narrative. Social media remove and filter anything that goes against the narrative as well.
Why is it so important to prevent discussions on early treatment options? It's like the complete system changes and barley anyone notices because the media keeps using all critical thinkers as scapegoats for why we still have this whole pandemic.
I think all they do with this censoring is that they confirm the doubts of the undecided that there's something more going on with the whole pandemic and the vaccination. I think censoring is inefficient and it's never worth the cost. Because now, we have this precedence and who knows what is considered "dangerous information" in the future.
More frustrating is that most people blindly follow the narrative without second guessing, without checking. You can't even engage in a discussion with them. They immediately classify you as a conspiracy theorist or whatever the media says about similar people.
They grow up with this idea that the system is perfect and that politicians, politics organs, and promi scientists can never be wrong and that they can always be trusted with any claim they make. It was similar with CFS, which is now stigmatized and this is the ongoing narrative in the medical community.
If not even the medical community is able to second guess each other and themselves, how can we expect a whole system of lower qualified (by average) to recover from this defunct system?
