Pierre Kory has become widely acclaimed for his forthright reporting of data regarding Covid19 and the policies that have been implemented globally since it's advent. He here publishes Roger Pielke, Jr.'s article on the publishing of scientific research in journals and how propaganda has been used to deceive people, while censorship has been used to prevent that deception being discovered and understood. It is apparent that millions of people have died as a result of being deceived about the efficacy of treatment options and succumbing to adverse effects of mRNA injectables that were concealed by censoring information showing the dangers of those products contradicting the propaganda that claimed those products were 'safe and effective'. ![ScientificConsensusWeaponization.jpg](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/valued-customer/23sxpRyy9PFFHi4Bktn6NjP45iG4wqT9qfoa41masvJdBuTPqHbS2mPqi1zeZQoBktxaK.jpg) IMG source - pierrekorymedicalmusings.com It was such false claims of the danger of Covid19 that convinced me in March 2020 that scientific publishing had been weaponized, when the claim that Covid19 had an IFR of 3.4% was made by the WHO. Available data disproved that claim (best estimates are now .035% - two orders of magnitude lower, ~1/100th of the WHO's claim), and brutal psychological manipulation was being used to terrorize populations. Since that time tens of millions of people have died as a result of being subjected to the adverse effects of mRNA injectables that have been concealed by censorship, while false claims of need, efficacy, and safety have been promulgated. Financial mechanisms have caused journals, that have in some cases earned reputations for integrity over more than a century of publishing, to succumb to these manipulations. I have undertaken to stay abreast of these issues since alerted to the disinformation I was subjected to, and observed that financial mechanisms have corrupted the scientific publishing industry. @lighteye first alerted me to these issues, and I remain grateful for that criticism that may have saved my life. I continue to advocate for free speech because it is necessary to our survival, and censorship of danger signals, such as the corruption of science publishing, is an existential threat to each of us, and humanity itself. That criticism reached me because I remained open minded despite disagreeing with @lighteye on other issues, and I mention this because it strongly advocates against censoring people because we believe they are wrong about something. This demonstrates that free speech requires enabling those with whom we disagree to speak without suppression, and to listen to what they have to say. I humbly ask to be proven wrong by everyone I disagree with. I hope everyone is able to appreciate criticism for this reason, because all of us can learn we are wrong and by changing our minds about those things become right. Some of the things we are wrong about may be existential threats, and censoring voices we disagree with could be signing our own death sentences. The scientific method is basically skepticism, attempting to disprove hypotheses and accepting that those that cannot be disproved are as right as we can determine. It depends on access to factual information and that depends on free speech. It also depends on honest consideration, and that requires listening to those with whom we disagree with an open mind. Censorship and propaganda have contributed to the deaths of millions of people globally, but it is their own ignorance that killed them all. Choose to honestly consider viewpoints you disagree with, because it may be you that is wrong. Choose life.