I have cited a statement made in the Texan Congress, which was reason enough to put me into a seven-day Twitter quarantine. Previously, I have been banned for posting my peer-reviewed vitamin D publication and a paper on the effectiveness of masks. Both Cancel Science and Cancel Culture are real. I fully understand that propaganda hoaxes and fake reports should be tackled. However, the public opinion is currently dominated by international big-tech in collaboration with governments and major media companies.
In that way, we are told what to think. Experts and journalists who still dare to speak up are silenced by the adherents of the self-declared truth. Once one comes up with arguments that do not correspond to the official narrative, the unperturbed swarm of mosquitoes is already on its way. Only rarely does the “feedback” go beyond ad hominem attacks. Most of the time, one is discredited as a covid or science denier, conspiracy theorist, anti-Semite, or Nazi. The mob masses are often also just victims of manipulation.
The degree of censorship and oppression has taken on new dimensions under the guise of fighting the pandemic. By politicising science (i.e. manipulation of science for political gain) academic and scientific freedom has been negatively affected. There is only one ‘Truth’ left. And it is precisely this circumstance that is alarming since scientific discourse is based on different opinions that can be underpinned with evidence. If you put 100 scientists in one room, you’ll still have 100 different opinions based on personal knowledge and evidence interpretation.
The product of scientific achievements should be for sale. The scientists should not.
It’s this plurality that generates knowledge. This is why scientific conferences were held before the pandemic. People got together to exchange information and perspectives. Thinking outside the box is important because many problems in the real world are multi-disciplinary. A virologist, for instance, has very little to do with public health. Likewise, there are other scientists who have much better insights into human metabolism. Bringing pieces of information together can therefore solve problems in a holistic way. It is still a mystery to me how we have allowed these scientific principles to become obsolete.
The global implementation of the Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’ has led to the fact that this much-needed dialogue is labelled as betrayal and disdain for humanity. Citing peer-reviewed studies and expressing concern suddenly poses a danger to the general public. Scientists who oppose the dictatorship of opinion are defamed as heretics, dragged through the mud by the media and silenced by social media.
Martin Kulldorff, for example, had a similar experience to mine. Martin is a professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at Havard Medical School. He was banned from Twitter for a week for talking about masks. The accusation that he spread misleading and potentially harmful information is an outrageous insolence. Within the last couple of weeks, many others have been temporarily banned for referring to scientific publications that criticize the current measures. Alternative solutions must be discussed objectively as long as they are based on well-documented facts.
The whole situation stands and falls with the media coverage. But no improvement is in sight here either. I have learned from journalist contacts that criticism of the measures and procedures in many media houses is currently unwelcome. Journalists who nevertheless express criticism in social media are directly attacked and intimidated by the above-mentioned mob. Their hatred is often fuelled by so-called fact-checkers, who portray dissenters as enemies of the people in 1933-style.
Particularly journalists who are committed to the system should ask themselves why politicians and scientists who are almost always wrong with their forecasts and assessments are repeatedly invited to talk shows and news programmes. In the meantime, I have given up hope that the present seasonality will lead to a change in thinking. The underlying reason is that most journalists are part of a bubble that favours harsh measures.
This is because their radical environment would not accept a critical stance, which could lead to professional and private troubles. Besides, their own opinion is strengthened by their environment. This principle is called confirmation bias.
Even though I have done nothing wrong and act purely on moral grounds, I am consistently discredited on the internet by disciples of the alarmists and fact-checkers. Some cultists are not even afraid of destroying lives. My former employer, for instance, has been contacted several times because I debunked that Christian Drosten very likely skipped the peer review process for his PCR test publication. Every time I submit scientific publications myself, however, the respective journals are contacted by the woke “sceptics”, and I am accused of untenable conflicts of interest (e.g. that I sold vitamin D pills, LOL). Those fact-checkers who do this are not fact-checkers at all.
They are propaganda tools of the ruling elite. Their ideological blinkers prevent them from questioning their own position. This is precisely how the critical voices among us scientists are increasingly muzzled. It is only a question of time before I and many others are permanently banned from Twitter and other “social” media.
Therefore, I have decided to set up this website (https://www.goddeketal.com). I also have my own Telegram channel: https://t.me/goddek, and I created a backup account in case my main account is no longer accessible for whatever reason. You can find it under the handle @goddeksineal.
I will keep on fighting for our fundamental rights and democracy. Hope dies last.