How to Marginalize Ideas and People to Create an Illusion of Consensus, Hurting People in the Process

A story of hubris by the powers that be. This could also be characterized the sort of thing Jonathan Haidt would characterize as "structural stupidity":

People who try to silence or intimidate their critics make themselves stupider, almost as if they are shooting darts into their own brain.

What follows is an Excerpt From The Free Press. "Government Power v. People Power," By Dr. Jay Bhattacharya:

From the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, I was a vocal critic of lockdowns and school closures that I believed would cause more harm than good. In October 2020, with Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, I wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, which proposed protecting vulnerable people while lifting lockdowns for the majority of the population. In other words, it advocated a return to classic principles of pandemic management that had worked to limit the harm of other respiratory virus pandemics. Tens of thousands of scientists signed on.

Four days after we wrote it, the head of the National Institute of Health, Francis Collins, wrote to Anthony Fauci, labeling us as “fringe epidemiologists” and calling for “a quick and devastating published takedown” of the declaration. A propaganda campaign quickly ensued, with various media sources falsely accusing me of wanting to let the virus rip. It wasn’t just the press. Recently I learned in these pages that Twitter placed me on a secret blacklist to limit the reach of my tweets.

So what did I learn in 2022? I learned in a very concrete and painful way the effects of Washington and Silicon Valley working together to marginalize unpopular ideas and people to create an illusion of consensus.

This censorship and smear campaign deprived the world of a needed debate over Covid policy and might have avoided much unnecessary suffering by children, the poor, and the working class harmed by lockdowns.

[Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of health policy at Stanford University, where he has taught in the medical school for over two decades].

Here is an excerpt from the Great Barrington Declaration:

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

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. We call this Focused Protection.

Continue ReadingHow to Marginalize Ideas and People to Create an Illusion of Consensus, Hurting People in the Process

FAIR Discusses its Mission

End of Year Message by Bion Bartning, Founder of FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism), discussing the genesis and mission of FAIR:

When I was a child growing up in Newton, Massachusetts, I was passionate about civil rights. I wanted to do my small part to help “heal the world”—and move us ever closer to the promise outlined in the Declaration of Independence: that every person was created equal, and that we are all entitled to unalienable rights including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Martin Luther King Jr. was a hero to me, and still is. I remember the day several years ago that I first shared his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech with my two young children. He spoke the truth about our shared humanity, equal protection under the law, access to equal opportunity for all, and why it was important to treat our fellow Americans with dignity and respect. I thought, growing up, that everybody shared these values.

As a young teenager in 1988, I did not understand why our governor at the time was pilloried as a “card-carrying member of the ACLU”—which I viewed as an organization committed to standing up for the individual civil liberties that are promised to all Americans under the Constitution. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Equal protection under the law. I saw the ACLU as a vigilant guardian, fighting to protect our hard-won individual rights and freedoms.

Perhaps that was true at one time—but, as I discovered a few years ago, and many recognized much earlier, the ACLU is no longer the vigilant and nonpartisan civil liberties organization that we desperately need. Rather, it is a highly partisan fundraising machine that contributes to the ever-increasing polarization in our culture, while bringing in almost $400 million per year through the ACLU and ACLU Foundation, plus millions more through its state-level chapters.

And where does the ACLU spend all of the money that it raises from individuals and corporations? In 2021, Anthony Romero, CEO of the ACLU, was paid over $1 million. This is an astounding amount for a nonprofit organization to spend on one person—and, together with the significant salaries of the other key employees, shows the degree to which, perhaps, money and a careerist mindset motivates and drives the people at the top of the ACLU.

As founder and CEO of FAIR, I have never taken, and will never take, any salary or compensation. In fact, FAIR’s total payroll, for its entire team of paid staff members combined, is substantially less than the $1 million that the ACLU spends on its CEO alone. For almost two years I have donated, and will continue to donate, my time, energy, and money to support FAIR. The same is true of the other volunteers and donors involved in building FAIR since its launch last March—including Letitia Kim, head of the FAIR legal network, our chapter leaders, Board of Advisors, and hundreds of other courageous individuals.

Why do so many of us choose to be part of this? While we may not agree on every issue, we are all passionate about FAIR’s nonpartisan mission, and to advancing the values, principles—and individual freedoms—that are the foundation of a healthy, functioning, pluralistic society. I was compelled to found FAIR after seeing how the same illiberal and intolerant ideology that had infected my children’s school had caused the ACLU and other civil rights organizations to stray from their missions. I saw the urgent need for a new, truly nonpartisan, organization committed to advancing individual civil rights and liberties for all Americans—and that is exactly what we are building, with your support and involvement, at FAIR.

Continue ReadingFAIR Discusses its Mission

My Current Default Position About COVID Booster Vaccines

I received two COVID shots as well as a booster. Then, about six months ago I got COVID, which had me feeling down in the dumps for 3 days, which also left me with a loss of strength and balance for a few weeks after that. I'm hearing a lot about the alleged need for all of us to get more and more boosters lately. Should I? I'm not a scientist. I don't know how to read the medical research with confidence. I thought we would all have clear answers about COVID and boosters by now, but it has never been less clear. And now we have Twitter Files indicating that the U.S. government has been warping the conversation about COVID and vaccines, even having a hand in shutting down well-decorated medical professionals who disagree with the national narrative of "get lots and lots of booster shots." I wish we had dependable information about the following:

1. Whether boosters are meaningfully effective

2. Whether boosters are safe; and

3. Whether the risks of boosters (according to some) outweigh the benefits of booster (according to others).

It doesn't help that public health officials and CDC have been so wrong about so many things over the last few years. The evidence on this includes the internal reversals of CDC policy (e.g., No need for a mask, then you must wear a mask; getting the jab will keep you from getting COVID, then not so much). Every time there is a new pronouncement reversing a prior pronouncement, it is presented with equal confidence. Thus, it is not surprising to see recent statistics showing that ever greater numbers of Americans are refusing to get the newest boosters. But also consider comments by doctors such as "Elizabeth Bennett" on Twitter:

I am one of the many people who are now somewhere between disoriented, distrusting and disgusted with the state of COVID information. I am not alone:

In the absence of reliable information and wide-open vigorous conversation among our medical professionals, the rest of us need to act on assumptions and guesses. I am assuming that I am at more risk if I get yet another new booster than if I refuse it. I'm open to new information, of course, but I'm highly concerned that doctors and researchers with legitimate concerns about the boosters are still being shut out of the conversation. I've seen ample confirmation of this censorship--many doctors and researchers being completely shut down by Twitter for instance.  I also see many serious sounding accusations like these.  I would like to know a lot more information. I would like to have credible answers to these 130 highly specific concerns assembled by Steve Kirsch.

In the meantime, no more boosters for me.

Continue ReadingMy Current Default Position About COVID Booster Vaccines

I’d Like to Be a Fly on the Wall at Google These Days

First, a Tweet from Glenn Greenwald, noting what I have been noticing:

Taibbi's revelations should outrage every American. Since when is it the proper role of the U.S. Government to guide and filter conversations of Americans? Taibbi has arguably helped to reveal millions of violations of civil rights, per Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963). The Court’s decision was in favor of group of book publishers who sued a purportedly private "commission" created to “to educate the public concerning any book . . . or other thing containing obscene, indecent or impure language” that could corrupt youth. The Supreme Court held that through its threats of prosecution, the commission engaged in censorship. The Court further held that the commission's actions constituted acts of the state under the Fourteenth Amendment because the commission operated “under color of state law.” The government cannot use private intermediaries to engage conduct that the government cannot do on its own due to U.S. civil rights laws.

Also consider Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614 (1991): "Although the conduct of private parties lies beyond the Constitution's scope in most instances, governmental authority may dominate an activity to such an extent that its participants must be deemed to act with the authority of the government and, as a result, be subject to constitutional constraints."

Now consider this  follow-up Tweet by Elon Musk:

My thought at this moment. If we had caught merely one FBI agent meddling with a few acts of censorship at Twitter, it would have been a big deal and it would have caused much outrage. Are these disclosures too big, too many to absorb by most Americans? This overwhelming lawlessness brings to mind the quote attributed to Joseph Stalin: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

Continue ReadingI’d Like to Be a Fly on the Wall at Google These Days

Twitter’s COVID Censorship

David Zweig's new article at The Free Press: "How Twitter Rigged the Covid Debate: The platform suppressed true information from doctors and public-health experts that was at odds with U.S. government policy." An excerpt:

The United States government pressured Twitter to elevate certain content and suppress other content about Covid-19 and the pandemic. Internal emails that I viewed at Twitter showed that both the Trump and Biden administrations directly pressed Twitter executives to moderate the platform’s content according to their wishes.

At the onset of the pandemic, the Trump administration was especially concerned about panic buying, and sought “help from the tech companies to combat misinformation,” according to emails sent by Twitter employees in the wake of meetings with the White House. One area of so-called misinformation: “runs on grocery stores.” The trouble is that it wasn't misinformation: There actually were runs on goods.

And it wasn’t just Twitter. The meetings with the Trump White House were also attended by Google, Facebook, Microsoft and others.

When the Biden administration took over, its agenda for the American people can be summed up as: Be very afraid of Covid and do exactly what we say to stay safe.

Continue ReadingTwitter’s COVID Censorship