That’s the same person

2/2 Subject: Censorship and Media Bias

Incident: Podcast with creator of mRNA technology, in which he is critical of the vaccines, is taken down by YouTube for violating “community standards” after 798,000 views.
https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1405838948560166912

Op-ed: “And it’s crazy to me how the media picks its darlings, and refuses to apply any real scrutiny to their statements. In a sane media environment, journalists would be tearing through Dr. Fauci’s emails that have been acquired by Jason Leopold, and they would be pouring over the NIH grant documents that have been posted by Judicial Watch in an effort to build out a greater understanding of how various state and private agencies collaborate to move money around the world in pursuit of research that may be very well intentioned, but that in the end, could actually have caused the greatest pandemic since the 1918 flu. But instead it’s all team sports in headlines that could have been written by high school sophomores, glorifying dunks and our favorite popular kid owning the class nerd.”
https://thedevilmakesthree.substack.com/p/splitting-hairs-to-thunderous-applause

Subject: General opinions and ideological debates

Opinion: “In a year with no shortage of questionable studies masquerading as science, this paper is perhaps the most bizarre and Orwellian piece of scientific literature I’ve encountered. It is what I consider to be emblematic of a phenomenon I can only describe as the inversion of science–an attempt to alter the very definition of science itself. If this paper is what passes as scientific inquiry in our most esteemed scientific institutions, then we can safely say that we are witnessing the death knell of scientific inquiry as practiced at the institutional level.

Oddly, almost the entirety of the paper is spent acknowledging that it’s the skeptics–rather than lockdown or mask proponents–who have a far more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the underlying data. Yet despite this concession, the authors conclude (or not so much conclude as simply accept a priori) that such skeptics are misguided–despite offering zero explanation, evidence, or counterargument. The paper’s closing paragraphs draw a parallel between the Jan 6th Capitol rioters and lockdown/mask skeptics (both groups are skeptical, you see), a transparent attempt at guilt by association that is meant to reinforce just how dangerous our ideas are if placed in the wrong hands. Whether our ideas are correct is not something MIT is interested in addressing; they simply know that such ideas are dangerous. “Thinking for yourself”, as the authors note in the conclusion, can lead to "horrifying ends.””
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/mhgosb/the_inversion_of_science/

Discussion: Why don’t we have a safe vaccine that actually works?
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownCriticalLeft/comments/oqt86d/why_dont_we_have_a_safe_vaccine_that_actually/

Discussion: “Mandate vaccination for everyone, including all children” vs “The vaccines are dangerous, deadly experiments” – using England’s age demographics + Covid-19 mortality data to appeal for nuance + proportionality in the vaccine debate.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/oyouji/mandate_vaccination_for_everyone_including_all/

I’d love any additions and/or suggestions to make this stronger.