Question: Why do we not see a balanced debate on the media about treatment and jags. I’ve seen lots of experts from universities who have been censored. Shouldn’t we given both sides to come to a balanced conclusion?

Jonny Coates answered on 18 Jan 2022:

I think this is a really good question and I could spend hours talking about this. One of the areas I researched was looking at which kind of scientists came forward as “experts” early in the pandemic. Most were using their expertise responsibly but a significant minority were not and annoyingly many of these were Nobel prize winners….(there is actually a name given to Nobel prize winners who become bonkers and begin ignoring the scientific consensus and evidence – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease).

In the media this becomes very dangerous and fuels anti-vax and anti-science groups – just look at the Great Barrington declaration and the people behind it. Often these people are ignoring evidence and I think just trying to promote their own careers and self-interests. There is also some evidence for this but I’ll not link here.

Balance is good when there is a valid and evidence backed counter argument/position. However, with COVID many elements do not have a valid counter argument. Let’s take mask wearing as an example. The evidence suggests that they are 10-20% effective. But they have become a huge political issue and people (very unreasonably) refuse to wear them. In this case, there really isn’t a scientific position that would provide balance.

In terms of jabs and treatments this is a little different. It is a valid point to be concerned about vaccine side effects. But what would balance look like here? Vaccines have gone through lots of regulation and testing to ensure they are safe and there is no evidence that they are dangerous (beyond the known side effects which are very limited). As there is no scientifically valid counter to this then on the news “balance” is often provided by anti-vaxers or people making political points. This leads to people thinking, wrongly, that the vaccines are dangerous or contain something to control them.

Treatment is an area that is even more important to consider the evidence. Lots of people provide unproven treatments or treatments that are not supported by scientific evidence. I’m fairly certain you never tried to drink bleach when Trump suggested that as a treatment! If we allow these kinds of people to give their views and opinions (which is not backed by scientific evidence is all this is) then that is not balance but it is dangerous.

To focus on your point about experts from universities who’ve been censored. Many of these have not been providing views that are backed by reliable scientific evidence or are not actually the right experts. I’m an expert in immunology but if I start talking about the large hadron collider on the news that does not suddenly make me a physicist – and I’d have no idea what I was talking about. It is not balance and people are not experts if they are not discussing the topic on which they are actually experts and this is why these people do need censoring. I assume you’re talking about the Oxford group behind the Great Barrington declaration? The people behind this have repeatedly ignored evidence that disagrees with their views (which is not what a scientist does) and have peddled lies throughout the pandemic. Their own work has been heavily criticised and badly designed. Jay Bhattacharya is not a relevant expert – he is an economist, not immunologist! He has also been caught out lying in court so often that his “evidence” has been dismissed on multiple occasions. And he resorts to suing real, valid, scientists who stand up against him.

For balance we need to consider
1) Who is providing the balance – are they justified (and logical) experts? Is this their field of expertise or not?
2) What the evidence says – is there strong and reliable evidence to provide a counter argument and therefore balance?
3) What the purpose of the balance is – are we explaining the potential side effects of a vaccine or are we allowing anti-science or anti-vax stances?

There is a huge difference between providing balance and giving a platform to dangerous people. Science works by coming to a consensus through rigorous experiments and data.