The future of Freedom of Thought
The future of freedom of thought is at risk in the wake of the belated attention being paid to the Wuhan lab leak theory.
Prof Angus Dalgleish, a British oncologist who has been one of the most influential scientific voices behind this theory, says that he has been ostracised by many of his peers and told he was out of his depth. He struggled to find a publisher for his initial findings and was compelled eventually to publish it “disguised as a vaccine paper”.
Prof Dalgleish thinks he met such a hostile reaction because of a desire by scientists to avoid offending the Chinese government and a fear of endorsing a politically incorrect narrative.
We have got to the point where the more significant and complicated a subject is, the less likely it is that society is able to engage in an open debate.
Take the pathetic nature of the debate over the promised Unlockdown of June 21st. Just as the basic question of where the virus came from was sidelined for months because it did not fit with preconceived ideas, the efficacy of the vaccines, and the success with which they have been rolled out, has become surreally marginalised.
Instead of discussing how quickly vaccines could spell the end of restrictions, the commentariat fixates on the risk of another wave as if absolutely nothing has changed. Somehow, despite low deaths, the Indian variant, rather than the vaccine, has become the game changer.
Research on the psychological impact of lockdowns remains extraordinarily stunted, save for a few tentative papers on the effect of lockdowns on mental health and face masks on child development.
Leading Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff was recently suspended from Twitter after questioning the consensus on face masks, and whether the vaccine is necessary for children and those with prior natural infection.
The impasse that we have reached is even more alarming because tech has the power to silence dissenters far more effectively than old-fashioned dictators. Unlike the days when ideas and information were largely communicated through word of mouth or the printing press, which required enormous resources to try and control, public debate is concentrating onto online platforms, which can be censored at the tweak of an algorithm.