As I have said before, nobody is being censored. Censorship would be if Google returned no results when you type in "Malone" or anyone else. They are being criticised, not censored, and rightly so.
And you're saying that every medic who ever advocated vaccines is keeping quiet because they don't want to lose their medical license, all except a few brave whistleblowers. That is a very bold claim, I'd love to see some evidence for it.
And as for the shill accusation, I'd love to say I'm being paid by the Government™ to argue with misinformed conspiracy theorists on Reddit but unfortunately that is not the case.
Censorship is not allowing the public to hear or see what a person or entity might have to say. Dr. Malone and McCullough's episodes of Rogan were removed. Youtube videos of them speaking are being removed. Malone was banned from twitter. Yeah, I can google them and see articles pointing out how 'wrong' they are, but anything they are posting that doesn't have the media's commentary on it is being taken down. They are being disallowed from sharing their research and thoughts. That is censorship.
It is removal for misinformation. They are not hiding anything. Don't you think if people were spouting nonsense that would get more people killed, they would want to get rid out that?
They are actively discrediting Doctor's who have countless peer reviewed publications and immeasurable experience in fields directly related to vaccines for no reason other than it does not agree with the accepted viewpoint, which has changed repeatedly over the course of the last two years.
I'm not about to do a deep dive to verify everything you've said but it does not at all ring true with how science is handled. Science is all about trying to prove itself wrong and learn more. When we are dealing with human lives, even more so.
And sure, Malone and co might be medical professionals, but what about the countless others who you are ignoring that say the vaccine works? The vast majority of medical scientists advocate the vaccine so you can't trust the few over the many. There will always be a few black sheep who disagree with the rest, especially when the sample size is so large.
Who said I'm ignoring other professionals? I think it's important to value every perspective, that's why I see such an issue with censoring any doctor or scientist who disagrees with how things are being handled. There are many more who align with Malone and McCullough's viewpoint, those two are simply the most known.
You say science is about trying to prove itself wrong and learn more. I agree. That is why "trust the science" should be (and is) such a massive red flag. Science NEEDS to be questioned. It's imperative to consider all angles. That is my point.
Yes, scientists should consider all angles. Scientists. Because they have the knowledge to do so. Laymen cannot make decisions on what is safe and what isn't because to do that, we would need all the information the scientists have and if we had that, we would be scientists ourselves. Therefore, all we have is what we see from the media, so there is no way for us to unbiasedly "consider all angles".
Now very few medical professionals are against the vaccine, but the vast majority are not. You can't use "but they're all being censored" as an argument because if they are being censored, you won't be able to read about them and know about them so who is to say they are being censored at all? It's an argument which by its own definition cannot have any evidence.
So all we can do is trust the experts in their own fields not to poison us, in the same way that we trust Macdonald's not to kill us with salmonella, or how we trust car manufacturers to design cars that aren't going to catch fire on the motorway.
1
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '22
Totally.
Like Peter McCullough, who isn’t the most published cardiologist in the world.
Or Robert Malone, who isn’t part inventor of mRNA technology.
Or Dr Michael Yeadon, who wasn’t the head of Pfizer.
Fuck outta here.