1. This is a thread about the barriers to academic publication for work that challenges the ‘official narrative’ on Covid-19 such as our work challenging the 'official' data about asymptomatics.
2. Our paper about the “1 in 3 people with Covid-19 have no symptoms” claim has already had 4093 reads since posted on researchgate on Friday, and 337,255 impressions to the tweet about it. The video summary has been watched by 7,530 people in 2 days. doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.…
3. But, this was the response we got less than 24 hours after we submitted it to the BMJ: 
4. Even more bizarrely, neither the medRxiv or arXiv sites (where we routinely post pre-prints of our research) would accept the paper. Here is the MedRxiv response:
5. while arXiv (which said: “Your article is currently scheduled to be announced at Fri, 9 Apr 2021 00:00:00 GMT”) then quitely changed the status of the article to “on hold” as the submission “was identified by arXiv administrators or moderators as needing further attention.”
6. Now compare this with what happened in April 2020 when we first investigated Covid-19 data. Whereas our latest work shows that 'case' numbers have been exaggerated and that mass testing of asymptomatic people is counter-productive, at that time we were actually concerned that
7. a) the numbers infected were being UNDERESTIMATED and
b) the data was being skewed by the fact that ONLY people with extreme Covid symptoms were being tested (and hence we argued for the need for more random testing).
b) the data was being skewed by the fact that ONLY people with extreme Covid symptoms were being tested (and hence we argued for the need for more random testing).
8. These views were not considered threatening to the "official narrative" and of course random testing WAS widely implemented after August. We had no problem getting those articles published in academic journals e.g: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
9. But things are completely different when you challenge the "official narrative". Given that even researchgate has been censoring such articles narrative it is possible that our latest paper may be removed.
10. Here is a blog post with all the relevant information and links
probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-ba…
probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-ba…
11. UPDATE: shortly after writing this tweet we got the following response from arXiv (note the paper which is 'not of sufficient interest' now has 4,206 reads on researchgate, 8,286 youtube views and 341,235 impressions on twitter)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
