Science Journals Publish Pro-Lockdown Reports, Censor Anti-Lockdown Studies: Authors (Connecting the Dots: CDC, FBI, Science, Johns Hopkins University, Biden administration, Supreme Court, Manufactures of Drugs and Vaccines, University of California at San Francisco & Soros Funding, All Networking)
The
Epoch Times
Oct
5 2023
Kevin
Stocklin
COVID
censorship appears to be making a comeback—if it ever left.
Numerous
physicians and academicians say they have been attempting to publish studies
that show that lockdowns had enormous costs and marginal benefits, but they
have found many doors were closed.
“The
whole scientific review process on anything related to COVID-19 has become highly
politicized and contaminated,” Steve Hanke, professor of economics at Johns
Hopkins University and
former member of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, told
The Epoch Times. Mr. Hanke says he has been among those who have experienced
censorship for criticizing lockdowns.
While
many people may look back on the pandemic shuttering of schools, businesses and
churches as costly, intrusive and, in some cases, devastating failures of
government, lockdowns are garnering increasingly favorable reviews within the
medical community, as reports critical of lockdowns are being silenced.
This
is occurring at a time of revelations that the Biden
administration leaned on tech and media companies to
silence voices that dissented from the official COVID narratives.
In
September, a federal appeals court ruled that the White House, the U.S. surgeon
general, the CDC
and the FBI
had “likely violated the First Amendment” in pressuring social media companies
to censor the views of those critical to official government narratives on
COVID. The court ordered agencies and individuals within the Biden
administration not to “coerce or significantly encourage a platform’s
content-moderation decisions,” or otherwise influence social media companies to
block protected speech.
“The
issue is not whether the ideas are wrong or right,” Dr. Bhattacharya
said following the ruling. “The question is who gets to control what ideas
are expressed in the public square.”
The
Biden administration appealed the decision, which will likely ultimately be
decided by the Supreme Court. The central question is the extent to
which private companies infringe on Americans’ First Amendment rights if they
censor at the behest of government officials.
‘Our
Work Was Effectively Censored’
The
report by Mr. Hanke, Lars Jonung and Jonas Herby (HJH), titled “Did lockdowns
work? The verdict on COVID restrictions,” concluded that
lockdowns were “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions.” This study
has faced rejection from mainstream medical publishers, while studies that
praise lockdowns are being published, and amplified by the media.
While
the Social Sciences Research Network (SSRN), a premier publisher of medical and
other scientific studies operated by Netherlands publisher Elsevier, rejected
the final HJH report, it did publish articles that attacked the HJH report.
“The
SSRN allowed the authors of the linked article to upload their work, while our
work was effectively censored,” Mr. Hanke said. “Why? Our results went against
the dogma of officialdom.”
An
article by Mr. Hanke and colleagues, responding to their critics, was also
rejected by SSRN, Mr. Hanke said.
In
both cases, SSRN stated that the rejection was due to “the need to be cautious
about posting medical content.” This appears to be a new criterion and
inconsistent with SSRN guidelines, which preclude material that is “illegal,
obscene, defamatory, threatening, infringing of intellectual property rights,
invasive of privacy or otherwise injurious or objectionable.”
By
contrast, a report published
by SSRN in September, titled “SARS-CoV-2 lineage importations and spread are
reduced after nonpharmaceutical interventions,” gave a favorable evaluation of
lockdowns. “Nonpharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs) is the new euphemism for
lockdowns, mask mandates, travel bans and other suspensions of civil rights
during pandemics.
“Ultimately,
SARS-CoV-2 was eliminated during the study period due to contact tracing and
mandatory quarantine measures,” the report stated, referring to state
restrictions in Hong Kong. In Switzerland, the authors wrote, “strict border
closures alongside the 2020 partial lockdown were effective in controlling the
entrance of new [COVID] lineages into the country.”
A
report published by SSRN in June, titled “Estimating the Population
Effectiveness of Interventions Against COVID-19 in France,” stated that “our
results highlight the substantial impact of NPIs, including lockdowns and
curfews, in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic” and that “the first lockdown was
the most effective, reducing transmission by 84%.”
Laying
Groundwork for Future Lockdowns
Reports
such as these appear to be laying the groundwork for legitimizing lockdowns and
other NPI government mandates as a future policy response to pandemics.
An
August report titled “COVID-19: examining the effectiveness of
nonpharmaceutical interventions,” published by the Royal Society, a
“fellowship” of eminent scientists, states: “One of the most important lessons
from this pandemic is that the effective application of NPIs ‘buys time’ to
allow the development and manufacturing of drugs and vaccines. There is every
reason to think that implementing packages of NPIs will be important in future
pandemics.”
A
group called factcheck.org did their own analysis of Mr. Hanke’s work, citing
other academicians who criticized him and emphasizing that the HJH study was
not peer-reviewed.
“There
have been a lot of studies assessing whether and to what extent so-called
‘lockdowns’ and various NPIs have been effective, and plenty of research that
has concluded these measures can limit transmission, or reduce cases and
deaths,” Factcheck stated.
Inquiry,
a medical journal, also refused to publish the HJH paper critical of lockdowns.
According to correspondence between Inquiry and the authors, the journal
initially requested a peer review by three relevant subject experts.
As
the next step in the publishing process, the HJH paper did receive three
favorable reviews by Inquiry’s reviewers, Mr. Hanke said. However, shortly
after receiving the reviews the executive editor of Inquiry retracted them.
“In
my long academic career of nearly 60 years, I have never encountered such a
thing,” Mr. Hanke said. “Indeed, I’ve never even heard of such a thing. It’s
truly unprecedented and outrageous.”
In
a joint peer-reviewed report in Econ Journal Watch, Dr. Bhattacharya and Mr.
Hanke stated that “there is nothing that matches a looming pandemic to generate
fear, and there is nothing like fear to grease the skids of censorship.”
The
authors suggested a pattern of government and media cooperation to silence
dissent.
“First
come the ‘fact checkers’ who produce unfounded, irrelevant verbiage that lacks
critical sense or analytical insight,” they wrote. “Next come [media] hit
pieces that echo the claims of the so-called fact checkers.”
The
end result is an absence of alternative viewpoints from mainstream publications,
they said.
‘Too
Sensitive’ a Subject to Print
Dr.
Vinay Prasad, a physician, epidemiologist, professor at the University
of California at San Francisco’s medical school and
author of over 350 academic articles and letters, also detailed “a startling
pattern of censorship and inconsistent standards from preprint servers” that
refused to publish his research criticizing COVID vaccines and mask mandates,
while frequently publishing his research on cancer and oncology.
Preprint
servers are online repositories that post academic papers.
“Specifically,
MedRxiv and SSRN have been reluctant to post articles critical of the CDC, mask
and vaccine mandates, and the Biden administration’s health care
policies,” Dr. Prasad writes. “Preprint servers are not supposed to be
journals— they are not supposed to reject articles merely because the people
running them disagree with the arguments within.”
When
Dr. Prasad and his colleague Dr. Alyson Haslam wrote a report about their COVID
work being censored, SSRN declined to publish that as well, he says.
Dr.
Bhattacharya claims that he has also been censored by MedRxiv regarding his
analysis that criticized lockdowns. In 2020, he and colleagues Christopher Oh
and John Ioannidis, led by Stanford University infectious disease professor
Eran Bendavid, conducted a comparison of countries like Sweden and South Korea
that did not have government lockdowns against countries that did, and found no
statistically significant benefit from mandatory orders on COVID spread.
According
to Dr. Bhattacharya, “MedRxiv refused to post the piece, telling the authors
that the topic was too sensitive to permit the publication of a preprint, even
though the site teemed with modeling analyses purporting to demonstrate the
efficacy of lockdowns in limiting the spread of COVID.”
Having
published an expanded version of their working paper via the Institute for
Economic Affairs as a peer-reviewed book, Mr. Hanke and his co-authors are
continuing their efforts to also share their study in mainstream medical journals,
he said.
“We
anticipate that the paper will receive a fair and favorable review and will be
published,” Mr. Hanke said.
The
Epoch Times reached out to SSRN and Inquiry for comment regarding this article
but did not receive a response as of press time.
Science.org
https://www.science.org/content/page/leadership-and-management
Leadership
and Management
Sudip
S. Parikh, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Publisher, Science
Family of Journals
Sudip
Parikh, Ph.D., became the 19th chief executive officer of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and executive
publisher of the Science family of journals in January 2020. Parikh has spent two decades at the nexus of
science, policy, and business.
Connecting
the Dots:
Science is a
publication for the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS).
Donald Kennedy was
the editor-in-chief for Science and a trustee at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace (think tank).
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace (think tank).
George Soros was the chairman for
the Foundation to Promote Open Society and is the founder &
chairman for the Open Society Foundations.
Open Society Foundations was a funder
for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (think tank) and
the Atlantic Council of the United States (think tank).
James A. Baker III is
an honorary director at the Atlantic Council of the United States
(think tank) and was the general counsel for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
William H. Webster is
a director at the Atlantic Council of the United States (think tank)
and was a director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Robert Jeffrey is
a director at the Atlantic Council of the United States (think tank)
and was a board member for the CDC Foundation.
CDC Foundation is
a foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Amy Robbins
Towers is a board member for the CDC Foundation, a
director at the Human Rights Watch and was a director at the Millennium
Promise.
Open Society Foundations was a funder for
the Human Rights Watch.
George Soros is the founder
& chairman for the Open Society Foundations, was a benefactor
for the Human Rights Watch and the chairman for the Foundation
to Promote Open Society.
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Human
Rights Watch and the Brookings Institution (think tank).
Mark B. McClellan was
a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (think tank), a
commissioner for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is
a director at Johnson & Johnson (COVID Vaccine Manufacturer).
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP was a lobby
firm for the Johnson & Johnson (COVID Vaccine Manufacturer).
Vernon E. Jordan
Jr. is a senior counsel for Akin, Gump, Strauss,
Hauer & Feld, LLP and an honorary trustee at the Brookings
Institution (think tank).
Constance J.
Horner was a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution (think
tank) and is a director at Pfizer Inc. (COVID Vaccine Manufacturer).
Suzanne Nora
Johnson is a trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank)
and a director at Pfizer Inc. (COVID
Vaccine Manufacturer).
Amy W. Schulman is
a trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank) and the EVP
& general counsel for Pfizer Inc. (COVID
Vaccine Manufacturer).
David M.
Rubenstein is the co-chairman for the Brookings Institution
(think tank), a regent at the Smithsonian Institution, a
trustee at Johns Hopkins University and spent Thanksgiving with Joe
Biden.
Joseph R. Biden Jr. spent
Thanksgiving with David M. Rubenstein, is a regent at the Smithsonian
Institution and the president for the Joe Biden Administration.
John G. Roberts
Jr. is the chancellor for the Smithsonian Institution, the
chief justice for the U.S. Supreme Court and an honorary member of
the Robert Trent Jones Golf Club (Gainesville, VA)
Vernon E. Jordan
Jr. is the president emeritus for the Robert Trent Jones Golf Club
(Gainesville, VA), a senior counsel for Akin, Gump, Strauss,
Hauer & Feld, LLP and an honorary trustee at the Brookings
Institution (think tank).
Akin,
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP was a lobby firm for the Johnson
& Johnson (COVID Vaccine Manufacturer).
Mark B. McClellan is
a director at Johnson & Johnson (COVID
Vaccine Manufacturer), was a commissioner for the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution (think tank).
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Brookings
Institution (think tank).
George Soros was the chairman for
the Foundation to Promote Open Society.
Richard C. Blum was
an honorary trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank), a
regent at the University of California and married to California
Senator Dianne Feinstein.
University
of California San Francisco is a University of California campus.
Resources:
Past Research
N.Y.
Judge Grants Legal Rights To 2 Research Chimps (Past
Research on Science)
THURSDAY,
NOVEMBER 9, 2017
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2017/11/ny-judge-grants-legal-rights-to-2.html
FBI
lawyer James Baker testifies he's 'not out to get’ Sussmann: 'This is not my
investigation, it's yours' FBI lawyer James Baker testifies he's 'not out to
get’ Sussmann: 'This is not my investigation, it's yours'(Connecting the Dots:
Baker, Clinton, Soros, FBI, CIA, Atlantic Council, Clinton Foundation & the
Brookings Institution) (Past Research on the FBI)
SATURDAY,
JUNE 11, 2022
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2022/06/fbi-lawyer-james-baker-testifies-hes.html
The
CDC: A Truly Corrupt and Dangerous Organization (Past
Research on the CDC)
TUESDAY,
JANUARY 5, 2016
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-cdc-truly-corrupt-and-dangerous.html
Johnson's
Baby Powder and Ovarian Cancer (Past Research on Johnson & Johnson (COVID Vaccine Manufacturer)
SUNDAY,
APRIL 10, 2016
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2016/04/johnsons-baby-powder-and-ovarian-cancer.html
IG
Farben / Bayer / Pfizer / Israel (Past Research on Pfizer (COVID Vaccine Manufacturer)
SUNDAY,
SEPTEMBER 19, 2021
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2021/09/ig-farben-bayer-pfizer-israel.html
Smithsonian
Admits to Destruction of Thousands of Giant Human Skeletons in Early 1900′s (Past Research on the Smithsonian Institution & the U.S.
Supreme Court)
WEDNESDAY,
DECEMBER 10, 2014
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2014/12/smithsonian-admits-to-destruction-of.html
University
of California IT Workers Sue After Losing Jobs To Outsourcing (Past Research on the University of California San
Francisco)
TUESDAY,
MAY 2, 2017
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2017/05/university-of-california-it-workers-sue.html
Dr.
Ben Carson: President Should Be ‘Sworn in on a Stack of Bibles, Not a Koran’ (Past Research on Johns Hopkins University)
MONDAY,
SEPTEMBER 21, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment