ArticleMinerva2022
Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics.
Article in Minerva, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- 'When I had concerns about my own patients…I was told to keep quiet': experiences of moral injury among healthcare workers under Covid-19 vaccine mandates in Alberta, Canada.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2026Article
- WHO'Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Bottleneck and enabler evaluation of avian influenza health event - Guatemala, January-February 2023.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- What Lessons can Be Learned From the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic?International journal of public health · 2025Review
- When normality collapses from one moment to the next. A sociological theory of singular crisis.Frontiers in sociology · 2025Review
- Article
- Is Covid-19 "vaccine uptake" in postsecondary education a "problem"? A critical policy inquiry.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2024Article
- Reports of Batch-Dependent Suspected Adverse Events of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: Comparison of Results from Denmark and Sweden.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Engaging Communities in Emerging Infectious Disease Mitigation to Improve Public Health and Safety.Emerging infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Review
- COVID-19 mortality paradox (United StatesWorld journal of experimental medicine · 2024Review
- Is society caught up in a Death Spiral? Modeling societal demise and its reversal.Frontiers in sociology · 2024Review
- COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign.Cureus · 2024Review
- Self-Deception in Clinical Nursing Practice: A Concept Analysis.Clinical nursing research · 2024Article
- Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Vaccine Hesitancy and the Concept of Trust: An Analysis Based on the Israeli COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign.Minerva · 2023Article
- Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) for Population Health and Health Inequalities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Protecting public's wellbeing against COVID-19 infodemic: The role of trust in information sources and rapid dissemination and transparency of information over time.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of COVID-19 has led to numerous controversies over COVID-related knowledge and policy. To counter the perceived threat from doctors and scientists who challenge the official position of governmental and intergovernmental health authorities, some supporters of this orthodoxy have moved to censor those who promote dissenting views. The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences and responses of highly accomplished doctors and research scientists from different countries who have been targets of suppression and/or censorship following their publications and statements in relation to COVID-19 that challenge official views. Our findings point to the central role played by media organizations, and especially by information technology companies, in attempting to stifle debate over COVID-19 policy and measures. In the effort to silence alternative voices, widespread use was made not only of censorship, but of tactics of suppression that damaged the reputations and careers of dissenting doctors and scientists, regardless of their academic or medical status and regardless of their stature prior to expressing a contrary position. In place of open and fair discussion, censorship and suppression of scientific dissent has deleterious and far-reaching implications for medicine, science, and public health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.