Bombshell report from UK mainstream media. The truth IS coming out. “Just following orders” is now a familiar call as a generation suffers the psychological damage of lockdowns. MH
Did scientists self-censor during Covid? Lockdown critics ‘had considerable tacit support but many stayed silent amid fears it could damage their careers’, expert says
By MATTHEW LODGE Daily Mail
PUBLISHED: 20:37 AEDT, 3 March 2024 | UPDATED: 20:44 AEDT, 3 March 2024
Critics of Covid lockdowns had considerable support among scientists but academics stayed silent for fear it could damage their careers, an expert has said.
Professor Robert Dingwall claims that those who voiced opinions going against the consensus during the pandemic ‘paid a price for trying to voice loyal opposition’.
The former Government Covid advisor said those in scientific circles who had concerns about the impact of lockdowns on society were cowed by the potential consequences they could face professionally.
In the years that have followed the pandemic concerns have been raised about how the closing of schools affected children’s education, while NHS waiting lists for treatment have soared.
It comes as a new survey found that almost 70 per cent of British academics say they believe more thought should have been given to how shutting down the country would impact society.
Customers line up in a socially distanced queue outside a branch of the Nationwide Building Society in Worcester in September 2020
Then-Health Secretary Matt Hancock answers questions from the media in a Covid briefing at Downing Street in March 2020
The survey of 198 anonymous UK-based scientists, conducted by The Telegraph and Censuswide, found that many had reservations about the implementation of a nationwide shutdown in response to the spread of Covid.
When asked whether they thought ‘the Government paid sufficient attention to the long-term damage of lockdowns’, 68 per cent said they did not.
Only 19 per cent said they thought the ‘Government paid sufficient attention’ to this before implementing the policy.
Those who were surveyed were also critical of how the Government got its message across to the public, with 70 per cent saying they thought it was ‘not transparent and not well communicated’.
However, a majority of scientists said they thought the decisions that the Government made were transparent and well communicated.
(Martin comments: The two statements above seem rather contradictory. If 70% thought it wasn’t transparent or well communicated, how can “a majority” think that it was?)
They also backed the data used as a base for decisions around Covid policy, with 70 per cent saying the effectiveness of the modelling used was ‘excellent’, ‘good’ or ‘average’.
One expert said the results of the survey showed there was less of a consensus on lockdowns than was portrayed to the public at the time.
Prof Robert Dingwall, a former government Covid adviser, from Nottingham Trent University, told The Telegraph: ‘It was always clear to those of us who were able to make evidence-based criticisms of ‘official science’ and government actions, that we enjoyed considerable tacit support in the scientific community.
‘This was, however, muted by concerns about loss of patronage, access to research grants and difficulty in publication as the cost of speaking out.
‘Others certainly paid a price for trying to voice loyal opposition. I don’t blame anyone for keeping their head down if they had a career to build, a family to support or a preference for a quiet life.’
After pandemic NHS waiting lists soared to record highs, with more than 120,000 patients thought to have died while waiting for operations and procedures in 2022.
One Tory MP who was a critic of lockdowns during the pandemic said he thought the ‘lack of an open and science-led conversation during the crisis was… disturbing’…
Martin comments: What a contrast. The silent majority who let fear rule their lives and never spoke up. Versus those of us who risked, and often lost, family relationships, friendships, and careers. Who were ridiculed and ostracized, but stood up and spoke out with courage. Imagine if those who remained silent had joined the resistance, And to those who say “but what about the virus?”. Well, the virus is still here and is now endemic. The lockdowns did not make it go away. The mRNA shots simply made things worse. So what did those mandates gain? What was it really all about? Social engineering. Control. A way of finding out how much of society would comply/resist. A way to make massive profits for big pharma. A way to reduce the population. Some of these or all of these are valid reasons for the “plandemic”, but it certainly wasn’t “for your safety”. That is for sure.
“Just following orders”…where have we heard that before?
Get your copy from our Online Store or your local book and magazine retailer
Australian Retail Locations » Uncensored Publications Limited
New Zealand Retail Locations » Uncensored Publications Limited
As censorship heats up and free thought becomes an increasingly rare commodity, we appeal to our readers to support our efforts to reach people with information now being censored elsewhere. In the last few years, Uncensored has itself been censored, removed from the shelves of two of our biggest NZ retailers – Countdown Supermarkets and Whitcoulls Bookstores – accounting for 74% of our total NZ sales.
You can help keep the Free Press alive by subscribing and/or gifting a subscription to your friends and relatives.
