Meet Dr. Ben Rein of Stanford University
Ben believes that platforms like Spotify should censor people like Robert Malone who want to express views that differ from the misinformation being spread by the CDC, FDA, and NIH.
First, read this article about an effort by a very small number of people to force Joe Rogan to never ask questions that could lead to an answer that doesn’t comport with their world view.
Guess what the academic credentials of the guy who created the petition are?
He’s a postdoc at Stanford in Psychiatry! A psychiatrist thinks Malone is spreading misinformation. I’m serious… check this out:
Since Spotify isn’t going to take down Rogan based on his letter, I’ve emailed him and invited him (and the co-authors of his letter) to debate Malone and the rest of us. That way he can achieve his goal of correcting Malone’s misinformation.
Will they respond? No chance. They never do.
One of the signers was Sabina Vohra-Miller who posts her share of misinformation and isn’t interested in correcting it when confronted. She posted this tweet:
Here’s how she reacted when I offered to debate the science. Blocking me is the preferred method for dealing with conflict. I get it.
I've rarely seen so many prominent people crawl out of the woodwork to complain only to sink back into the shadows when confronted themselves. They define cowardice. What amazes me is how so many reputations climb up the COVID hill to die on it. Take Reuters, for instance. I will never think about that news organization the same way, and not in a good way. I'm simply left with why. One by one, in the face of easily proven facts, once well regarded people and organizations are self-immolating.
Brein@stanford.edu Send him your concerns. I did:
Dear Dr. Rein,
It seems you would like to censor or delicense doctors who you feel are spreading mis or disinformation? This is a serious ideological position given our country’s constitutional commitment to free speech and the ever changing nature of scientific “truth” as a natural result of the scientific method and human fallibility. You must have a very solid grasp of the underlying data and strong convictions about the validity of the information you find dangerous. Wouldn’t the world be better served if you put your convictions based in knowledge to the test in an open debate with someone who held opposing views? Why not debate Steve Kirsch or Dr. Malone on these topics? When you fail to respond to the credible and broad based voices you oppose you reveal a lack of confidence in your convictions.
Sincerely,
Alex Cook