> The first mRNA vaccine experiments were carried out by P. Felgner, J. Wolff, G. Rhodes, R.W. Malone and D. Carson. P. They completed a number of mRNA vaccination studies that resulted in nine patents on mRNA vaccination with a shared priority date of March 21, 1989. One experiment documented that NEF (an HIV protein) mRNA vaccination in mice, followed by HIV challenge reduced positively stained cells by 2-fold and p24 expression was reduced by 50% at eight weeks
Is that accurate or not?
> Nobody is being banned for dissent, they're having incorrect claims challenged and removed from sources
Dr. Robert Malone was banned from Twitter (and LinkedIn, and Youtube) for his views on the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.
The bigger point you’re missing, however, is that it’s science, not religion, and is about testable claims rather than someone’s past reputation. The fact that he was involved in an advance doesn’t mean he’s authoritative about the entire field for all time or remove the need for any new claims he makes to be critically tested. His Twitter account was banned for lying, not asking questions. He would have been fine if he’d been participating in the scientific process — asking questions, submitting meta-analysis papers, running experiments, etc. are all easily available options to someone with his background should he be willing to hold himself to scientific standards again. He hasn’t done that because he knows these claims won’t hold up to scrutiny.
Dissent is disagreement. People are in fact and explicitly being banned for disagreeing with the official information on COVID vaccines. Science is always changing and dissent is necessary to advancing our understanding of the world, whether it ends up being correct or not. When you ban people for “misinformation” you are impeding the scientific process.
Twitter is also not the scientific process. If he wanted to go back to holding himself up to the standards of a scientist, that would involve doing actual research or participating in the community processes - for example, I’m sure his reputation is enough that he’d have no trouble submitting a letter or meta-analysis to any journal and having it be read. He’s chosen not to do that because he knows that these claims won’t pass muster.
What is your source for this? Aren’t you assuming bad faith?
Regardless I think you are missing the point. Dissent by definition will not have to conform to your worldview or notions of what is true or who is considered a scientist. If you only allow things which your worldview considers true, that is not real dissent. Twitter does not permit real dissent on their platform.
There was a time when the claims Galileo was making about the sun were not considered true nor were they acknowledged by scientists. Really consider that.
> Had he simply said “I don’t agree with this” his account would still be active like all of the other people who do this.
No, if I tweeted “I do not agree that the vaccines are safe enough.” I would get banned. How do I know this? Because I tweeted this and I was banned from Twitter. You’re not being honest.