Malone's been bootstrapping this "cancelled scientist" grift in plain sight since his appearance on Weinstein's podcast.<p>It's a formula you see over and over again.
1) Say enough shit to get your hand slapped
2) Do the IDW podcast tour to whine about the "establishment" and plug your Patreon and/or supplements.
3) Get bankrolled by Thiel.
For posterity, here is Dr Robert Malone's Google scholar profile showing his parents and papers:<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ&hl=en" rel="nofollow">https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ&hl=en</a>
The daily mail has done a lot of medical research:<p><a href="https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/" rel="nofollow">https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/</a>
Why are YouTube and Twitter considered the bad guys here? Joe Rogan signed an exclusivity deal with Spotify, republishing the content somewhere else without Spotify's consent is copyright infringement and the other platforms are legally obliged to take it down.<p>That's not censorship at all.
Never heard of him, but seems like he's published a lot of scientific articles on vaccines over the past 20+ years.<p>He has a personal website with some more details on who he is:
<a href="https://www.rwmalonemd.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.rwmalonemd.com/</a><p>In his own words, he's a scientist that believes in vaccines, but believe that too many shortcuts has been taken in developing the Covid-vaccines, and that big pharma has too much influence in forcing them onto everyone.<p>Don't know if this is true or not, but just a quick summary of what his stance seems to be.
What I’m actually more worried about now is the stress on the medical system. I’ve seen reports and heard personally that the medical systems here in the US are pretty close to collapse.
I mean, the fact that 1 reputable scientist doesn't approve the vaccine doesn't disqualifies the thousands of reputable scientists that approves it. Scientific consensus is never unanimous.
"Dr Robert Malone claimed US is now like Nazi Germany with society 'hypnotized' to believe in vaccines and extreme pandemic measures"
I don't know much about this guy, other than my conspiracy-laden mother citing him as reason enough to not take a vaccine. Along with the vaccine giving you the virus, it being dangerous, and so on. She's a polio survivor former alcoholic who has smoked a pack a day for most of the past 40 years - the hypocrisy and blindness hurts me.<p>So I'm inclined, without knowing more, to say this man is at the least an unwilling tool of antivax conspirators. Does that mean it's right to ban him from social media? It was one thing to ban a treasonous president for fomenting an insurrection at the Capitol. It's another to ban scientists who invoke Godwin's law on a discussion regarding vaccine mandates.<p>Suspending public figures should be a matter of emergency and dire consequence, not a habit. Even if I understand the "private website" perspective, and believe individual websites have a lot of legal leeway to ban as they wish, bans like this will have a backlash effect. Victim-complex people will cry out, and slippery-slope people will cry out.<p>At least the man can still have a personal website if people wish to listen to him - he is still more accessible today than most people in the world were just 20 years ago.