Scientists suing Biden admin over COVID info censorship

Source: Hot Air

The censorship of “unapproved opinions” on social media during the pandemic, despite being a very serious matter, almost became something of a joke after a while. Anyone, including medical professionals, who offered any opinions or linked to any studies that departed from the company line being put forward by Fauci and company quickly found their Twitter and Facebook accounts suspended. That trend seems to be fading a bit this year, and tweets of that nature are frequently responded to by users saying things along the lines of, ‘a year ago you’d have been put in Twitmo for that tweet.’

But the damage had already been done. The suspensions may be largely gone, but they are not forgotten. Now, a group of doctors and other scientists are joining a lawsuit being brought against the Biden administration, along with the CDC and DHS, over the perceived censorship. The suit alleges that the federal government collaborated with the Big Tech social media companies to have dissenting voices banned from the discussion. (Daily Caller)

Several well-known doctors and scientists joined a lawsuit against the Biden administration Tuesday over social media censorship of COVID-19 information.

Drs. Jayanta (Jay) Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff and Aaron Kheriaty joined the lawsuit filed by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, alleging that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) worked with Big Tech companies to censor Americans discussing the pandemic. The doctors alleged they were censored on social media platforms for expressing views in opposition to the positions of the federal government, their representation, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), said in a Tuesday press release.

This group includes professors of medicine from both Stanford and Harvard, so we’re not talking about armchair medical experts here. Early in the pandemic, they published their previous research in epidemiology and recommended a “targeted” approach to dealing with the pandemic. They suggested that only the most vulnerable people should be the focus of government protective measures, specifically the elderly and those with compromised immune systems. They argued that younger, healthier people should be able to fight off the virus through acquired natural immunity until vaccines were approved and the lockdowns and mandates would cause more harm than good.

For their efforts, they were banned from social media platforms. And the group believes there is more than sufficient evidence showing that the White House and the CDC directly influenced the decision to ban them, silencing expert professionals who dared to reach a different conclusion than Dr. Fauci. Will the evidence be strong enough to persuade a court? You be the judge. Here are some of the documents that were unearthed following a FOIA request.

One email from May 2021 shows CDC official Carol Crawford emailing a list of tweets to Twitter employees that the agency regarded as misinformation about vaccine shedding and microchips. Another email from one month prior shows Twitter senior manager for public policy Todd O’Boyle asking Crawford to help identify certain types of misinformation. The employee adds that they’re “looking forward to setting up regular chats.”

Another instance reveals O’Boyle commenting that it would be “tricky” to set up a meeting to discuss misinformation because Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was testifying before Congress that week.

The CDC was in touch with Facebook as well. Carol Crawford sent a similar list of “offensive” posts to Facebook management so they could be “dealt with.” She also worked with the company to set up special “reporting channels” that the CDC and the Census Bureau (for some reason) could utilize to directly report posts to the company. Oddly, Facebook gave the CDC millions of dollars worth of free advertising space during the same period.

That sounds like a significant amount of evidence to bring forward in court. But what sort of rectification is possible even if the plaintiffs prevail? The damage has already been done. I suppose they could be awarded monetary damages, but that still won’t be coming out of Biden or Fauci’s pockets. The taxpayers will be handed the bill as usual. But it’s just possible that this might serve as a lesson for future government officials who want to try to stomp on the First Amendment, so maybe it’s still worth the effort.