A Professional Social Network Steps Up in a Big Way and an mRNA Discoverer Returns to Contributing to the Scientific Debate

A Professional Social Network Steps Up in a Big Way and an mRNA Discoverer Returns to Contributing to the Scientific Debate

LinkedIn recently stepped up and re-activated a prominent member’s account, Dr. Robert Malone. Considered one of the first, if not the very first inventor of mRNA-based breakthroughs, Dr. Malone is also a member of the TrialSite advisory committee. Why was Malone removed from LinkedIn, a stringent misinformation policy that doesn’t differentiate well between scientific dissent (good), versus misinformation (bad). But thanks to a solid executive in that company (now owned by Microsoft), the social network for professionals is graced again by Dr. Malone’s presence. But what about so many other people that fall into this social network filtering process—the undoubtedly hundreds if not thousands of others that are simply making well-intentioned dissenting positions? They shouldn’t be censored and removed from their social media accounts. Nor should the government be telling social media companies what terms are misinformation. For example, if ivermectin is authorized for use in Slovakia or Indonesia that’s a fact, not a piece of misinformation. We cannot accept social media, prodded on by the government, to systematically and algorithmically shelter the people from knowing what’s going on in the world. Our internet starts to look more like China’s than that of the United States.

Although Malone’s removal from LinkedIn was covered by no media in America, it was picked up in Italy.

In that piece, the online media shared from Malone:

I was blocked by LinkedIn and my account was closed. #censorship at the time of COVID “, this is the tweet of Robert W. Malone, one of the researchers who laid the theoretical and clinical foundations of current gene therapies (mRNA and DNA, from the Salk Institute in 1988), last week was interviewed by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, where he expressed his concerns about Covid vaccines. The interview was removed from YouTube. Carlson immediately reiterated that Malone “has the right to speak”, even if he is contrary to what is claimed by the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), directed by Anthony Fauci. To understand how this came about, it is necessary to contextualize the facts. First, a relevant aspect of the pandemic has been the frequency with which some scientific positions have been embraced, rejected or ridiculed without having the necessary time to verify them on their merits. We can start with the SARS-CoV2 theory of escape from the laboratory, first mistreated then re-emerged and legitimized as a concrete hypothesis. A similar story has repeated itself on several occasions, for example for Tocilizumab which went from a drug with “no benefit” to an “approved treatment for COVID19”. The same goes for the rare adverse effects from vaccines such as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, purpura and myocarditis – initially not taken into account, albeit in the presence of sufficient data, now recognized by the FDA and EMA.”

LinkedIn Steps Up but Work to Do

But thanks again to ethical management at the social media platform owned by Microsoft, plus a contribution from a well-connected colleague, the social network not only reinstated Malone but issued an apology. Compared to some of the censorship-experienced platforms such as Facebook and YouTube, not to mention Twitter, the move by LinkedIn is a breath of fresh air.

But in reality, none of the social media platforms are that adept at determining dissent from misinformation, so, unfortunately, many professionals are probably censored or restricted in some way even though they more than likely shouldn’t be. The impact is ominous for open, dynamic scientific discussion as such actions deter, or even scare, anyone else who might want to speak out in a legitimate scientific or professional dissent.

Call to Action: Remember freedom of speech, especially scientific dissent, represents a foundational necessity, as uncomfortable as it may be, in a free and open, as well as innovative society.

Responses

  1. When is the “world” going to wake up and ask how 3 or 4 private companies localized in one country could come to be treated as if they are public utilities across several countries? All this censorship coming from them is a blessing in disguise, IMO.

    Let’s use our international networks and related resources to build decentralized communications facilities that cannot be censored by a tiny set of private companies localized in one country. It will be a slow process (and it has already begun with entities like Peer Tube and IPFS); but let us just remember that we voluntarily walked into the trap where we now find ourselves.