Silencing dissent: How social media giants advance fake science and drive maximum COVID-19 hysteria

Tales from the Twitter gulag.

Twitter threw me in the gulag for speaking out against baseless COVID-19 fear mongering. My sin, according to their COVID-19 monitoring team (which is an army of “fact checkers” who follow loose guidelines set forth by the World Health Organization, a massively corrupt “global health organization” that is largely beholden to the Chinese government): expressing contempt for an article about COVID-19 variants.

On Friday, I was locked out of Twitter for replying to an article that was advancing baseless fear mongering about a series of “new COVID-19 variants.” I was replying to a story by The New York Post, which was titled, “What to know about all of the COVID-19 variants.”

I read the first paragraph, which was not written by any kind of health expert, but from one of their general assignment reporters. It reads: “The world is on edge over the emergence of three new strains of COVID-19, each of which shows signs of being more dangerous and damaging during an already devastating pandemic.”

Anyway, the story recycles much of the garbage you’ve seen on television and in social media over the past year. It was nothing special – a giant dose of fear and paranoia, citing “scientists” and “experts” to make sweeping conclusions about these “new variants.” 

As I’ve discussed at length in The Dossier, there is no actual evidence that any of these new variants are more or less transmissible or deadly. The claims about the status of new viral mutations are wholly sourced to epidemiological models constructed by a handful of academics, who have access to influential people and platforms. These models have not been tested by actual evidence, and most of these models are not open source. Some have not even been peer reviewed.

The “new variant” insanity is not based on science, it is based on models. For something to become scientifically sound, it requires experimentation and evidence. These models are constructed around rudimentary hypotheses and theories, and then rushed to the nearest politician or public health official, who declares it a product of sound science.

For example, the British variant you’ve been hearing about is regarded as more transmissible. Why is this? Their “proof” is as follows: cases went up in the UK over the winter, and scientists found a new mutation that was driving a lot of infections. Therefore, the new mutation must be more transmissible, the “experts” claimed. 

This, of course, ignored the role of seasonal factors in disease spread, and an infinite set of other variables. Nonetheless, it was enough for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to renew his countrywide lockdown and smash the five-alarm fire panic button into oblivion. The idea that the British variant is more contagious is not, in fact, backed by any real science. It is based on an epidemiological model constructed by a handful of academics at Imperial College London. Nonetheless, this model, and countless other projections similar to it (the South African variant, the Brazilian variant, etc), have been mainstreamed into our collective consciousness without any actual science to back it up.

Fed up with the nonsense, I quote tweeted the story and wrote: 

“It’s all bullshit to keep you fearful, compliant, and locked down. There, saved you a click.”

Within about an hour, I received a notice from Twitter that I was being locked out of my account for spreading “COVID-19 misinformation.” My appeal was rejected within two minutes of sending it. I then had two choices: leave Twitter forever or delete the tweet, so I obviously chose the latter option. Twitter then informed me that they would restore my account in 12 hours.

Twitter and social media giants like Facebook and Instagram have made it virtually impossible for informed opinions and experiment-based science to make its way into the conversation. In the age of clickbait and the rush to the scoop, the first mover advantage has unsurprisingly dominated the COVID-19 conversation.

The COVID-19 era, and Big Tech’s weaponization of its preferred narratives, boils down to the speed advantage (and the content preference and manipulation advantage) of model-based “science” versus the longer form evidence-based science. 

As Winston Churchill once said: “A lie gets halfway around the world before truth puts on its boots.”

The model-based “science” camp has taken advantage of this first mover's ability to dominate the information space and sow maximum panic and hysteria, while also jamming through their collectivist draconian policy demands. The academics, bureaucrats, and social media titans are wholly committed to this fraudulent “scientific” method without bothering to follow up on the evidence side. These faulty hypotheses have the benefit of allowing them to be front and center – a never-ending cycle of clicks, views, panic, and zero dissent. 

Every bogus narrative can be traced back to these warpspeed, junk theoretical academic models. Whether it's nonsense predictions about variants, disease spread, lethality, and the like, it all starts with junk models labeled as science. Those junk models are rapidly elevated by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci and Boris Johnson, among other world leaders and health bureaucracies, and they are repeated ad nauseam by social media platforms like Twitter, and then reported in the media as if these are facts, and not loose predictions. When those of us on “Team Reason” attempt to slow down the panic cycle and bring actual evidence into the conversation, the social media giants make it their mission to remove us from the exchange.

You can trace virtually every wrong prediction, every proposed non pharmaceutical intervention, every catastrophic decision, to a model. This is not science, it’s garbage conjecture masquerading as science. It just so happens to have been embraced by the masses, largely due to these forces promoting the junk science, but majoritarianism isn’t science, either.

The “new variant” fiasco is the latest model-based unscientific fad among hysterical politicians, “public health experts,” and the social justice warriors who hall monitor dissenting voices on Twitter. I was not allowed to call out the obvious leveraging of natural mutations of a virus to sow panic within the cattle community. 

An “unexpected” (though very expected, if you understand the natural progression of a virus) and  “new variant” is also a great way to excuse the massive failures of the past year’s model-based non pharmaceutical interventions, which were based on junk science, which the “experts” claimed would work to stop the virus cold in its tracks. Additionally, these entities simultaneously leveraged the situation to demand more of their failed lockdowns, mask mandates, curfews, and the like. We have nothing positive to show for Team Lockdown’s policy interventions, which quickly became some of the greatest crimes against humanity in human history. Millions are now sicker, poorer, and no longer on this earth, due to their horrific, inhumane policy demands. Twitter, Facebook, Google, and the like would simply prefer that you never know about the alternatives to this madness.

Model-based science is not science at all. Despite this reality, questioning these loose predictions and their accompanying policy recommendations lands you in the crosshairs of our Big Tech overlords. I’m not the one pushing misinformation. Rather, I’ve been carefully dissecting these models and theories, and promoting strictly evidence-based information, since the beginning of this madness. As a journalist, I’m the one doing my due diligence and searching for the truth. On the other hand, these social media giants are recklessly elevating endless amounts of pseudoscience and complete nonsense, while these botched theories drive the masses into poverty, death, and despair.


I hope you are willing to subscribe to my publication by clicking the button below. Many future stories will remain exclusive to paid subscribers. I would be so grateful if you are willing to subscribe to The Dossier for just $5 a month or $50 a year.