New Study: Censorship of opposing Covid views.
A new study published in Springer.
Shir-Raz, Y., Elisha, E., Martin, B. et al. Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics. Minerva (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4
Amazingly this study was published by Springer, a huge academic publisher, and yet it takes the view that the censorship practiced on those who departed from the acceptable narrative was harmful.
Censorship, the Backfire Effect and Public Outrage
COVID-19 censorship is, in part, an exclusion of the views of dissident experts as well as citizens who question the standard position. This type of censorship has been a feature of many other controversial areas in science and medicine, such as AIDS, environmental studies, fluoridation, and vaccination (Delborne 2016; Elisha et al. 2021, 2022; Kuehn 2004; Martin 1991, 1999; Vernon 2017). In fact, censor- ship has a long history, and its purpose is to suppress free speech, publications and other forms of expression of unwanted ideas and positions that may be perceived as a threat to powerful bodies such as governments and corporations.
The study goes on to say that censorship can be harmful especially during crisis’ such as pandemics.
Furthermore, the denial or silencing of contrary views can elicit public mistrust (Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir- Raz 2016; Wynne 2001). Studies have indicated that in situations of risk, especially risk that involves uncertainty, the public prefers full transparency of information, including different views, and that providing it does not raise negative reactions in terms of behaviour, but rather, helps reduce negative feelings and increases the public’s respect for the risk-assessing agency (De Vocht et al. 2014; Lofstedt 2006; Slovic 1994). As Wynne (2001) warns, institutional science’s attempts to exaggerate its intellectual control and use knowledge as justification for policy commitments, while ignoring its limits, only alienates the public and increases mistrust.
The study is a qualitative study, meaning that rather than trying to quantify figures and data, it contains anecdotes and records narrative accounts of the events it is documenting.
First Reactions: Shock and Surprise
Most respondents describe their initial reaction to the persecution and censorship they experienced as shock. Some said that they felt threatened, and for the first time, excluded from the scientific/medical community:
I was speechless. It does not happen to me. I did not imagine. It was terribly threatening to me all those attacks ... it took me a month to recover from the understanding that this is the country we live in... I was in shock... I was sur- prised... My heartbeat I think was 200 per minute (#11).
As someone who has been an integral part of the [health] system, and knows the role holders personally - the rift I feel is very heavy (#1).
Respondents said that they felt that the threats, dismissals and attacks against them were in fact an attempt to silence them, just because their opinions were not aligned with those dictated by the authorities:
...everything was done initially to suppress my voice, because I was the only one screaming (#1).
Some respondents said they felt that the censorship and unprecedented attacks they experienced were especially vicious because those who did it knew they were val- ued and influential:
...they were actually trying to silence me in the media... it appears on the surface, that lawsuit basically was an attempt to censor me... I’m a frequent contributor on Fox News, I just testified in the US Senate..., my advice is valued all over the world, and I think it was a parochial attempt... to censor me...(#6).
There were five main tactics:
Cover-Up—
..very prominent… cover-up tactics included… …using third-party sources such as other doctors or “fact-checkers” to discredit dissident scientists and doctors. …sources… portrayed as independent (that) help mask the real sources behind the censorship.
Devaluation—
This tactic… publishing false and disparaging claims about them, dismissing them from work… stripping them of various senior positions—…to undermine their credibility and legitimacy. …devaluation, …“negative campaign” or a “smear campaign,” is often used by corporations, and its aim is to harm the reputation of an individual or a group (Griffin 2012; Lau and Rovner 2009). Smear campaigns help distract public attention from the content of the targets’ message…
Reinterpretation—
…framing censorship as a means of “protecting the public” from the dissenting doctors and scientists, portraying them as “misinformation spreaders” endangering public health in a time of crisis. …policymakers… arguing that contradictory information might confuse the public and cause panic (Clarke 2002; Frewer et al. 2003; Sandman 2007; Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz 2016).
Official Channels—
…only part of a wider range of silencing and repressive actions, which also included formal proceedings, such as investigating or withdrawing their medical licenses, suing them or ordering a police search of their homes.
Intimidation—
The respondents interpreted all the above tactics as being intended to intimidate and deter them from continuing to publish their views and criticism, and also single them out in a way that implicitly invites harassment by others and serves as an example to other doctors and scientists….
It is very encouraging to find this study published in a major journal like Springer, and the conclusion is worth quoting as well:
One main contribution of this study is in giving voice to scientists and doctors who raise questions, doubts or criticism in controversial areas in public health and science, especially during times of crisis. At the same time, we seek to raise aware- ness of the increasing use of censorship practices and aggressive tactics of suppres- sion, targeting even leading figures who dare to criticize or doubt the dictated “con- sensus.” Censorship and silencing practices can have far-reaching consequences, manifested in the violation of freedom of speech and of ethical principles, harm- ing science, and potentially risking public health and safety (Elisha et al. 2022). Researchers have already warned that the COVID-19 crisis confirms previous con- cerns about the deleterious implications of censorship (Cáceres 2022; Mucchielli 2020). We concur with Cáceres’ assertion that censorship and dogma are foreign to true science and must be abandoned and replaced by open and fair discussion.
I found out about this study in an article by Robert Malone: