Science Journals Push Pro-Lockdown Reports, Censor Anti-Lockdown Studies


(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) COVID-19 censorship made a comeback after numerous physicians and academicians were censored by mainstream scientific journals for their attempts to publish studies that show that lockdowns are bad for people.

“The whole scientific review process on anything related to COVID-19 has become highly politicized and contaminated,” Steve Hanke, professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University and former member of the Council of Economic Advisors under Republican President Ronald Reagan, informed the Epoch Times.

Hanke said that he’s been among those scientists who have experienced censorship for criticizing COVID-19 lockdowns.

“Did lockdowns work? The verdict on COVID restrictions,” the report by Hanke, Lars Jonung and Jonas Herby [HJH], concluded that lockdowns were “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions.”

As a result, this study has faced rejection from mainstream medical publishers. Meanwhile, the scientists who were paid off by Big Pharma and, therefore, wrote the studies that praised lockdowns were being published by these mainstream medical publishers and amplified by the mass media.

One of the examples of this censorship is the Social Sciences Research Network [SSRN], a premier publisher of medical and other scientific studies operated by Netherlands publisher Elsevier, which rejected the final HJH report but published articles that attacked the HJH report.

“The SSRN allowed the authors of the linked article to upload their work, while our work was effectively censored. Why? Our results went against the dogma of officialdom,” Hanke said.

When Hanke and his colleagues wrote another article where they responded to their critics, this article was also rejected by the SSRN, according to Hanke.

In both cases, the SSRN said that the rejection happened because there was “the need to be cautious about posting medical content.”

The Times added that this appears to be a new criterion and inconsistent with the SSRN guidelines, which preclude material that is “illegal, obscene, defamatory, threatening, infringing of intellectual property rights, invasive of privacy or otherwise injurious or objectionable.”