Erosion of Open Discussion

Those who question government actions or challenge established “scientific” narratives are often swiftly labeled as “conspiracy theorists.” Their online profiles may be altered to reflect this new stigma, and they may face accusations of “misinformation” or “disinformation.” If someone dares to question vaccine safety, they may be branded as an “anti-vaxxer.” This can lead to diminishing career prospects, particularly for scientists.

In the UK, MP Andrew Bridgen has faced scrutiny since he began raising concerns about COVID vaccines. During a December 2022 speech in the House of Commons regarding vaccine-related harm, the chamber was nearly empty, indicating a lack of interest from the establishment. Soon after, he faced a temporary suspension from Parliament for alleged lobbying activities, which seemed to serve as a warning, and later, a tweet referencing the Holocaust led to his suspension from the Tory party. This tweet did not deny or belittle the Holocaust; rather, it echoed a comment made by an Israeli cardiologist, and neither party was anti-Semitic.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist who previously advocated for vaccines, appeared on the BBC to discuss concerns about mRNA vaccines. Following his comments, the Guardian—a publication known for championing free speech—published a critical piece about him and his views, labeling them as “misguided,” which, while somewhat polite, still reflects a trend of silencing dissent.

The Importance of Questioning

Why are we becoming increasingly resistant to diverse opinions and questions? Open dialogue is fundamental to the scientific process; progress relies on challenging the status quo. Every scientific fact we accept today was once a question that challenged prior beliefs, and the concepts we hold dear may eventually be overturned.

There is no monolithic “science.” While a consensus may exist, there will always be dissenters who interpret data differently or propose alternative theories. Science is dynamic and ever-evolving. The Royal Society, founded in 1660, was created to promote independent scientific inquiry, and its motto, ‘Nullius in verba’—“take nobody’s word for it”—emphasizes the necessity of verifying claims through empirical evidence.

Albert Einstein famously stated, “Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech.”

The Inalienable Right to Free Speech

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, identifies free speech as an inalienable human right. Article 18 affirms the right to freedom of thought, while Article 12 protects individuals from attacks on their honor or reputation. Article 19 emphasizes that everyone has the right to express their opinions freely, seek information, and share ideas across all media.

Despite this, governments and media outlets seem increasingly determined to stifle open debate. Citizens are often treated as if they need protection from “misinformation” and “disinformation.” A growing number of “fact-checkers” are being employed to safeguard us from supposedly false information.

But who decides what is acceptable?

Who Stands to Gain?

It’s vital to consider who benefits from the suppression of discourse. Who gains if the public is conditioned to listen without questioning? The Twitter files reveal that the FBI has intervened in social media, influencing what is seen and what is hidden. What other forces are shaping the media landscape?

What ideas are being quietly silenced before they can reach the public?

Human Rights Watch indicates that both governmental and private entities are accelerating efforts to control speech and information through censorship and violence against those whose views are deemed dangerous. While this may seem like a new issue tied to the pandemic, similar concerns were raised in a 2011 New Scientist article that argued that “Science thrives on freedom of expression and must be at the forefront of defending it,” noting that scientists and writers have faced intimidation from various groups.

This suppression may have always existed, but our modern communication tools make it more visible.

We Are Treated Like Children

We are being treated like children—or perhaps like sheep—expected to comply silently while politicians and the so-called “elite” manage affairs without our input. This trend poses a serious threat to scientific progress, as it infiltrates every aspect of our lives.

Embracing Critical Thinking

It’s imperative that we awaken to this reality, engage critically, and seek out multiple perspectives on significant issues. We must demand that our politicians engage with us in meaningful dialogue, abandoning superficial sound bites for substantive discussions.

Imagine a world where diverse viewpoints are welcomed, where questioning authority is encouraged, where no one is silenced, and where even politicians can acknowledge their mistakes.