BMJ EDITORIAL - Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science

[vera99]

Blimey the author didn't hold back must have been a spirited debate in the office of BMJ to print this.

www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425

The author is; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamran_Abbasi

"The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies.20 The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die."

Wow! The article is very interesting, thank you for sharing it.

Good for them for publishing it.

I really don't think the public at large, including lots here on MN, appreciate what government "following the science" actually means. Or doesn't mean.

I'm glad someone has the balls to publish some truths.

Thank goodness that this is starting to happen

The Science has been used appallingly and manipulatively throughout this whole sorry affair.

I hope this is a sign the tide is turning towards a more reasoned and rational debate.

Yes, excellent article.

Here is another one about Independent Sage

"A good start and cautious welcome for new Independent SAGE

The Independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (iSAGE) published its first report on 12 May.1 Chaired by David King, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, the group includes experts in public health, epidemiology, virology, intensive care, primary care, mathematical modelling, and social and health policy. It was set up to address concerns about the absence of key disciplines from the government’s pandemic scientific advisory group (SAGE), its apparent reliance on modelling and behavioural science, and perceived interference by political special advisers.2

The group’s recommendations are strongest on public health measures and emphasise the World Health Organization’s criteria for easing lockdowns,3 including evidence that covid-19 transmission is controlled; that sufficient public health and health system capacity is available to identify, test, and isolate all cases4; that quarantine should last 14 days (not seven); that control and testing strategies should target vulnerable groups and settings, such as nursing homes and prisons; and that a quarantine policy is in place with a diverse range of community facilities."

I especially like this line.

"Efforts to revive the economy are vital, but no one contributes to the economy if they are dead. "

which has echoes of Andrew Marvell.

Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health,

This is the bit for me that has infuriated me the most. All scientists outside the core group being written off as Charletans despite years of expertise

It looks like warp speed to the vaccine now and Johnson will no doubt follow Cumming's and his pals out of the door in due course. Down the line the Tories will attempt yet another reboot of "it wasn't us honest gov" and some judicial inquiry will take months if not years to come up with some obvious truths and that will be that.

Good on the BMJ, who are well respected and long-established, to speak up.

I hope this is a first step towards a greater transparency in the debate. I think politicians and their pet scientific advisers have lost the trust of the public with their constant u-turns and dodgy data.

Time for the grown-ups to have a say...