Everywhere you turn, there they are, day in, day out: the Great Barrington Declaration authors, spreading harmful misinformation.

What's going on? Perhaps it has something to do with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

A mini-thread

1/n

First, recall the Fairness Doctrine, birthed during the rise of TV in 1949.

The doctrine required broadcast journalists to present controversial topics in a way that had balance.

Print journalists ended up following it too.

2/n

What ended up happening, sadly, is that when it came to topics like tobacco or climate change, journalists would trot out someone whose views were extremely far from mainstream science to give "balance."

The evidence is clear: tobacco causes cancers, climate change is real.
3/n

The science on tobacco & the science on climate change are clear. Every credible scientist believes tobacco causes cancer and climate change is real.

But news shows would find the 1 or 2 "contrarian" scientists to argue that tobacco is safe & climate change is a hoax.

4/n

Invariably, these "contrarian" scientists were in the pay of the tobacco industry or fossil fuel industry.

The Fairness Doctrine is all about telling "both sides" of the story, even when there are NOT two sides.

Fast forward to today.....

5/n

And sadly see the Great Barrington Declaration authors everywhere.

As you know, they oppose masks, they oppose test/trace, they oppose distancing & they VERY strongly oppose widespread vaccination.

RECEIPTS
https://bit.ly/3giMUNh 
https://bit.ly/3x3DKtI 

6/n

These views are extremely far from mainstream science. We see 1/5th of the world's population now living in nations with zero or very few new cases per day; they got there through public health measures that the GBD opposes. We see the UK & Israel using stay-at-home orders...7/n

...to drive cases down during their recent surges & then use widespread vaccination to accelerate the declines (again, GBD vehemently opposes stay at home orders and is strongly against widespread vaccination).

8/n

The public health science does NOT support the GBD's push for "herd immunity from natural infection."

In a deadly pandemic, ethical public health science is about protecting people from illness, suffering & death, using the science-based public health measures GBD opposes.

9/n

Is the Fairness Doctrine why the media give equal air time to the GBD, for "balance"?

But what kind of "balance" is this? On one side: proven science-based measures to reduce viral transmission, illness, long COVID & death. On the other side: a push for MORE transmission

10/n

Does half of our media coverage have to be given over to climate denialists?

Nope.

Does half of our media coverage need to be given to 3 academics (the GBD authors) with views extremely far from mainstream science who push for more infection?

Nope.

11/n

As Oreskes & Conway say in "Merchants of Doubt," when the Fairness Doctrine was established, "balance was interpreted, it seems, as giving equal weight to both sides, rather than giving ACCURATE weight to both sides" (emphasis was theirs).

12/n

And this is what's happening today. The GBD authors are given "equal weight" but what they spout is not just inaccurate, with no basis in science, it encourages infection. Imagine applying their views today in Michigan, Ontario, Brazil, India, Iran, Turkey....

13/n

They oppose masks, oppose test/trace/isolate/support, oppose distancing, oppose circuit-breakers ("lockdowns"). One author even argued in Jan 2020 that most Indians are immune & stated, wrongly, that it would be dangerous to vaccinate them.

14/n

What the global public health community is pushing for in India (masks, test/trace/isolate/quarantine/support, mass vaccination etc.) is opposed by the GBD.

Yet they get the same media air time to push their "contrarian" views.

WTF?

END/