Leaked Emails Reveal Who Really Shut Down Scientific Debate

by Phil Schneider

Dr. Robert Malone was just recently taken off of Twitter. The fancy term used is that he was “deplatformed.” Make no mistake about it. This is flat out censorship of dissenting voices, and this is just one of many in a long line of doctors who have been silenced. The freedom of speech debate must stay at the forefront of our discussions as it indeed threatens so much of the nature of life that Western living is based upon.

There has not really been much free scientific debate ever since the pandemic began. A few serious scientists who hold extremely powerful positions have basically quashed all legitimate debate on these matters. The “party line” or narrative has been nearly unanimous – there is only one solution – vaccines. Nothing else has been treated as anything but fake science.

The chief silencer has been Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has gone from being one of the most popular people in America to one of the most controversial people in America over the last year. Some people go as far as to actually blame him for the beginnings of the coronavirus pandemic. But even if one rejects that assumption, there is no question that Dr. Fauci has publicly rejected any form of therapeutics in dealing with the coronavirus. This is a very controversial stance. What has probably been revealed for all to see is that very few people have so much power to control public policy on matters of life and death as Dr. Fauci does.

Well, what would be a better alternative? A better option would be a large group of internationally respected doctors from a wide variety of backgrounds, let’s say ten or twenty, who legitimize debate and publicly support a certain policy without completely rejecting their opponents views.

For example, when a person asks a group of cardiologists what they suggest for a patient with some arteries that are clogged, the answers will usually not be identical. Some will clearly recommend an immediate bypass operation, while others will recommend a stent or two. A small minority may recommend a more out of the box approach of radically altering one’s diet and ramping up the exercise so as to attempt to reverse some of the damage. The three approaches are very different. Perhaps the first two option are what would be called more standard treatments while the third option is more radical. But it is a legitimate option, and can also be justified via scientific studies. In a proper setting, the patient will be offered all three options to choose from. The patient or the caretaker of the patient – not the doctor – should choose which path to go. The doctor should only recommend one path or another, but have no power over the patient’s choice.

This has not been the case in the present pandemic. Hundreds of millions of people are basically being coerced to take one path when indeed, others do exist. Dr. Fauci has claimed to “own” the term science and in a haughty fashion, rejects anyone who disagrees with him as being unscientific. There need to be more safeguards or checks and balances to the power that people like Dr. Fauci have over public policy. And this does not need to wait for the next pandemic. It should be one of the top priorities of the new Republican – led Congress in 2023.

Col. Kemp

ate="Admination" >

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More