Scientific and Political Censorship Reaches Its Tentacles Into Almost Every Major Social Media Platform

When I got kicked off Twitter for expressing an informed opinion about the potential efficacy of a certain drug in treating a well-known disease, I sought refuge in alternative platforms, thinking — perhaps naively, that the reign of medical and political censorship had not extended its tentacles into every part of the blogisphere. Alas, I was mistaken.

This morning, I woke up to the following message from Medium about my post, “Which Views Should Be Kept Out of the Public Square:

“Due to elevated risk of potential harm to persons or public health, Medium’s Trust & Safety team has removed the following content under its rules (https://medium.com/policy/medium-rules-30e5502c4eb4).”

In that blog post, I had laid out the content of a tweet about a certain medicine and its potential prophylactic and therapeutic value, citing a number of publicly known studies, including peer-reviewed studies in reputable journals, and referencing the testimony of prominent medical experts, including one who had extensive experience evaluating the efficacy of medical treatments.

The drug in question, which I am not allowed to name as I am now under the constant surveillance of my censor, has been used for decades by millions of people across the world, and is on the WHO’s list of “essential medicines.” It also has an excellent safety profile, and a very low rate of reports of serious adverse events and deaths.

There is an ongoing scientific debate, in countries like UK and USA, about the efficacy of said medicine in treating and/or preventing a certain well-known disease. Reputable physicians and medical researchers have published in peer reviewed journals on both sides of this debate.

This is how science, at its best, works. Arguments are presented and put to the test in a vibrant debate. If you disagree with someone, that does not automatically give you grounds for censoring their views. Aggressive censorship of political and scientific opinion is typical of dictatorial regimes like Communist China and Nazi Germany. That sort of aggressive censorship of scientific discourse and opinion does not end well for anyone, and certainly not for science or the pursuit of truth.

Twitter removed me from their platform for expressing an informed opinion about the potential for a well-known drug to be re-purposed for the treatment of a well-known disease, citing their rule against “misleading information” relevant to public health. I tried to lay out the evidence behind my Tweet, and the utter lack of transparency of Twitter’s interventions, in my latest blog post on Medium, “Which Views Should Be Kept Out of the Public Square?”

That blog post was taken down by my newest censor, Medium, within 24 hours.

What gives Twitter and Medium the right to take down content they disapprove of that is being actively debated in the scientific and political community? And why is there such a dreadful lack of transparency in their censorship procedures that they do not even feel the need to explain the precise manner in which censored content poses a genuine risk to public health and safety?

What “harm” do Medium and Twitter imagine might arise from my presentation of expert testimony and peer-reviewed research on the potential prophylactic and therapeutic benefits of a certain drug already safely used for decades to treat other diseases?

I have written to Medium Support to demand an explanation. Let’s see what they have to say in their defence…