Talking about "trust the science" but then deleting the scientists channels that don't agree with the official political narrative. Sounds like censorship
Seems like he's a crackpot who, like so many other crackpots, claims to have all these super-secret truths that are somehow amazingly known by him, but are ignored / rejected / unknown / whatever, to millions of other scientists all over the world.
I don't know if he should have been kicked off Twitter or not, but I personally don't see any value in listening to the guy.
He's certainly painted as a crackpot, so it makes sense it would seem that way. But I've found it's better to have your reality as unfiltered as possible (listen to the guy directly rather than listening to what other people say he is saying). Great username btw ;)
That would make sense in a world with unlimited time and no other demands on one's attention. But nobody has time to take in everything that is put out there. We all have to use filters, and for me, one baseline filter is "mostly ignore anybody who is making strong claims that run counter to what nearly everybody else is saying, unless they are presenting some highly persuasive evidence".
I'm not sure about Twitter and the details there. It seems he is unclear as to why as well.
What I did do, as with many similar cases, is go watch long form interviews rather than just taking the narrative as is. His recent JRE interview was timely and I learned quite a bit about the molecular biology behind covid.
What I can say is that the characterization of Dr Malone is awful and malicious. How you call someone who develops vaccines and took the vaccine an anti-vaxer is beyond me.
This seems to be the case with many cancelled for questioning the covid narrative. You can simply attack and label and the narrative engine that is our sick society kicks in.
How many doses have been administered? Enough that if the vaccine is bad news, everywhere crashes back to subsistence living because all the infrastructure will fail. I find it difficult to believe that nearly-unanimous expert support for vaccination is incorrect to such a degree.
Yes censorship. If you came to my house and said the rug was dirty, I could call you a jerk and kick you out of my house, or kick you out for talking to my wife a certain way, etc. etc.
First amendment means the government isn't going to come after you for something you say. It still means private citizens running private enterprises don't have to put up with squat
Malone has a PhD, he's not a medical doctor. He worked on mRNA, but was not involved in developing the vaccine.
He's also disseminating a lot of FUD on right wing outlets about the dangers of a vaccine that's been administered to millions with a high degree of safety and effectiveness. He seems to be working hard on publicizing himself and cultivating his victim status.
Also, as everyone knows, Twitter is a private platform and has total discretion over who and what it publishes. In this case, I think they made a good decision.
> "disseminating a lot of FUD on right wing outlets".
So when people get banned they should go home and curl up in bed when there's no more "left wing outlets" to speak at? Are you implying left wing outlets are for truth and facts, and right wing outlets are for lies and misinformation?
People may want to hear what this mRNA vaccine contributing inventor has to say. If his ideas and information are in conflict with the current public health narrative, that is something any adult has a right to listen to without censorship protocols kicking in.
> "Twitter is a private platform....I think they made a good decision."
Nobody gives a damn that Big Tech is private. Censorship is never a good decision. Big Tech has spent billions worming their way into our private lives. They want to be in every home, in every pocket. But when it comes to deciding to kick people off their platform for speaking their mind, it's "oh we can do that because we're private company".
