Social media giant Twitter has continued to flex its power to censor information by silencing a renowned Harvard professor and epidemiologist who expressed a perspective on COVID-19 vaccines, which was scientifically validated, but contrary to Big Tech’s well established pro-lockdown and vaccine acceptance biases.
Dr. Martin Kulldorff is on a vaccine safety subgroup that advises the CDC, FIH and FDA. In addition to being a professor at Harvard, he also works as a biostatician and epidemiologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Kulldorff has been cited in more than 25,000 academic articles.
Kulldorff is one of three co-creators of the Great Barrington Declaration, which offers a scientifically validated perspective, the gearing of lockdowns and vaccines towards protecting the most vulnerable.
The Declaration uses the term “Focused Protection” to describe the perspective that: “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.”
When Kulldorff posted a tweet challenging the notion that children and young people need the vaccination, Twitter censors reacted by placing a “This Tweet is misleading. Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine for most people” warning label on Kulldorff’s post, banning it from being liked or retweeted.
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Check your email to complete sign up
His tweet stated: “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people, and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.”
Kulldorff responded to the muzzle by denouncing Twitter. He wrote, “Twitter is damaging trust in science, public health and vaccines. Dangerous.”
Jeffrey A. Tucker, Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), commented on Twitter’s move and expressed his concern in an article where he claimed that Twitter was way outside of its scope—trying to dictate scientific debate—and expressed that Dr. Kulldorff has been a voice of clarity, reason, calm and science throughout the pandemic.
“We’ve been witness to Twitter censorship for more than a year, beginning with obviously objectionable extremists then gradually moving to silence people based on merely having an opinion that contradicts lockdown orthodoxy,” Tucker wrote. “If there ever was a troubling sign of the power and arrogance of big tech, of which I’ve long been a defender, this new action is it… That Twitter would choose to use its power over public debate to silence his insights should be of profound concern to everyone concerned about the use of science in the public interest.”