Branding speech as “misinformation” to shut down debate

The Left loves to brand speech with which it disagrees, or that threatens its political agenda, as racist, hate speech, a conspiracy theory, misinformation, or even the dreaded Russian disinformation.  The goal, of course, is to use these words and their negative connotations to suppress the speech instead of having to debate it.

For example, remember when Sen. Tom Cotton (R) said that the virus could have originated at, and been negligently released from, the nearby Wuhan Lab?  The media jumped all over that as a racist conspiracy theory—never mind that a negligent leak is the exact opposite of a conspiracy and that Cotton’s hypothesis had nothing to do with race (i.e., if it is racist to say it escaped from a Chinese lab then it must also be racist to say, as the Left was contending, that it came from a Chinese wet market).  In short, our nation’s prestigious media outlets, like the NYT and WaPo, were just spewing nonsense to advance their political agenda.  As we now know, the evidence has piled up in support of Sen. Cotton’s position.

But don’t take my word for it.  Listen to this NY Times senior writer explain why the Left is so closed-minded and anti-evidence, and read about how the Wash. Post now has to edit its articles to remove its previous claims that Sen. Cotton was spreading a “debunked conspiracy theory.”  Unfortunately, the beat goes on.  The latest example of branding speech as “misinformation” is arguably even more harmful, as the dreaded label is now being used to suppress valuable information about the vaccine.

The Left’s latest hit job is Big Tech’s silencing of a guy named Dr. Noorchashm, an immunologist (PhD) and surgeon (MD) with Ivy League accolades up the wazoo who discussed the risks of the vaccine for young, healthy people.  In short, he says, the virus poses almost zero risk to young, healthy people in the first place, and once a young person (or any person) gets it, they have natural immunity.  These facts—combined with new government research out of several countries showing that young people who get the vaccine have a 25 times greater risk of developing a serious heart condition—led Dr. Noorchashm to say that we need to think seriously before mandating the vaccine for young, healthy people, especially when they’ve already had the virus.

That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?  If I’m a healthy, 20-year-old college student who has already been infected, why would I want to take a vaccine against something that probably couldn’t hurt me to begin with and against which I now have natural immunity anyway, only to put myself at a 25 times greater risk of a serious, life-threatening heart problem?  

Now, I don’t know which way this is going to turn out.  It could very well be that the vaccine, even for young, healthy people, is still the way to go.  But the point is that the doctor poses questions that are good ones to ask, debate, and discuss.  Maybe he’s right, and maybe he’s wrong.  Let’s find out. 

Not so fast.  The woke children that serve Biden and run the Big Tech monopoly just censored and shut down the surgeon / immunologist—an expert in the truest sense of the word—for spreading “medical misinformation.”  (According to Tucker Carlson, the woke-sters at twitter are doing the same thing; see the tweets of Tracy Hoeg, MD, PhD.)  That’s right, an expert who weighs risks and benefits and questions the wisdom of the vaccine for a certain age group—even when there is evidence of the vaccine’s limited value for, and potential danger to, that age group—conflicts with the Left’s agenda.  Such questions must therefore be suppressed.

Follow the science!  Except when the science might not lead you to your predetermined destination.  In that case, suppress the speech! 

So much for free speech and reasoned debate in a democratic society.  Just remember this latest incident the next time you read a hit-job published in the NYT or WaPo—or one of the goofier but equally left-wing online publications—telling you that someone is spreading “misinformation.”  Today, that word is a strong indicator that the information under attack is probably worth a closer look.